Actually, I suspect that writing the supported protocols in the registry
doesn't work cleanly with linked spaces.
Suppose I have a reference to vos://foo/a/b/c which is actually a link to vos://bar:/x/y/z. Until I operate on vos://foo/a/c I don't know that it's a link, so I only see properties registered for the foo space. Suppose that foo and bar support different transports: my request to foo for a gsiftp transfer isn't valid on bar and get a fault. However, it gets a fault anyway because of the link and then I have to talk to bar to et at the data.
So...if I have to resolve bar's registration to find the data, I can modify my request to use a different protocol, and it works in implementation. But the foo space is effectively lying about the transfer capability of some of its nodes. Does this matter?
Guy Rixon gtr-at-ast.cam.ac.uk Institute of Astronomy Tel: +44-1223-337542 Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0HA Fax: +44-1223-337523Received on 2006-06-14Z12:37:10