John
Following your logic, this means that VOEvents can also be registered individually, rather than registering the server that handles them, as Ray suggests. I understand that LSST will be putting out thousands of event notices every night. Do you think the VO registry system will be able to handle the load?
Another problem is inflexibility. Suppose a group wishes to experiment with their own dialect of messages, and they want to change rapidly, adding and deleting. In the official (Ray) scheme, they would have a standalone message registry that may or may not be registered with the VO registry. In your scheme, each message is added and deleted from the entire global VO registry.
Of course it is much more convenient to have "everything in the registry", it is a one-stop shop instead of a two-stage process. But perhaps not always the best solution.......
Roy
John Taylor wrote
> a search of the registry reveals the ivo://..../loadVOTable message
>
> Ray Plante wrote:
>> Instead, I would recommend the approach that is to be used by the
>> VOSpace standard in which names are identified using a # suffix; e.g.,
>>
>> ivo://votech.org/plastic#info/getIVORN
>
Received on 2006-11-17Z16:03:37