• Date: 18 May 2009
• Time: 4:00 PM CET (conversion to other timezones)
• Duration: 1,5h
• Calling number: +41 22 76 77000 (ask to be connected to "GLUE Meeting")
• Shared screen session information:
  • URL: http://glue-wg.glance.net
  • Key: 1805

Agenda

• Update on last meetings Action List.
  • Create wiki page and move document changes to wiki
  • Update LDIF and examples
• Outstanding points (Examples: http://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/glue/LDAP2/examples/entity-use.ldif)
  • How to handle the entity object
  • How to handle attribute naming
  • How to handle inheritance
  • How to handle relationships
• The LDAP DIT and how the construct the tree.

Participants

• Sergio Andreozzi
• Stephen Burke
• David Horat
• Balazs Konya
• Maarten Litmaath
• Paul Livesey

Minutes

• Handling of Entity: agreement to keep Entity prefix for all attributes except for the ID, which takes the name of the first derived class as prefix.

• Attributes otherwise keep their names also in derived classes.

• IDs are globally unique (also across different classes).

• Sergio: LDAP objects need 1 abstract class, 1 structural class and any number of auxiliary classes.

• Relationships: imitate v1.x "ForeignKey: SomeForeignAttribute=value" syntax (no) or David's proposal "SomeForeignAttribute: value" (yes).

• Balazs: copy LDAP DIT from XML rendering. LDAP also needs to allow for grouping elements.

• Stephen: is grouping optional?

• Sergio: in XML mandatory where defined.

• Stephen: DIT not needed for queries.

• Sergio: v1.x uses foreign keys because of LDAP limitations. For XML keys are only added where the tree relationships are insufficient.

• David: makes queries difficult.

• Balazs: some relationships are less important, therefore not rendered.

• Stephen: every relationship needs a foreign key. Agreed.

• Sergio: chunk key was invented for parent-child relationships.

• Stephen: now all IDs are unique, no more local IDs, no special treatment needed for parent-child relationships.

• David: should a tree be imposed?

• Stephen: BDII changes the tree at the root! How many Admin Domains?

• Stephen: some objects are optional --> nodes may be missing. DataStore <--> Manager; Activity <--> {Endpoint, Resource, Share}

• David: XML has the same problem?

• Balazs: yes.

• David: imposing a tree conflicts with optional nodes in the middle.

• Stephen: one would have to relate all affected classes to Service etc.

• Maarten: impose structure at lower levels, look at higher levels later.

• Sergio: postpone discussion until we have looked at XML example.

• Stephen: which side of a relationship holds the foreign key?

• David: the side with fewer attributes, else depends on the case. We need to look at the undecided cases to try and optimize for queries corresponding to expected use cases.

• Next meeting planned for Tue. May 26 at 16:00.

Actions

• David will look at XML rendering and convert example to LDAP.