womullan at skysrv.pha.jhu.edu
Fri Jan 23 07:46:11 PST 2004
I would like to put a new spec out with something in it ...
I guess it may always be changed
I do not like multiple paths specified in the MEtadata as that measn a new piece of metadata for each standard service and it requires me to
look at the metadata to call the standard service.
I prefer a standard servivce in astandard place i.e. either of the ones
1. params to the CGI like discussed in strasbourg.
2. a standard named service e.g. if my service is TheService
I have theServiceSTDIF which takes params to do the standard services
3. Guys first one below.
I perfer most 2.
Can we get a vote on it ?
> If we do it this way, how do we associate the CGI call for metadata etc with
> the CGI for the basic service? Should it be like
> In that case it won't fit trivially to all existing services without recoding
> as not all will have the right directory structure.
> We could also allow
> and sort the paths out in the registry, with a recommendation to use the same
> path for all three parts for new work.
> However, if we do this we don't allow the standard interfaces to be coded as
> part of the basic service, and some authors may prefer to do that.
> Is it better to simplify the writing of CGI services by allowing any paths or
> the writing of clients by prescribing the path?
More information about the grid