[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.1.3.1 - I disagree. Here's a suggested alternative.
--
ca
Senior Software
Engineer
Office: 630
505-6150
Cell:
847-224-9196
john.patton@ca.com
From: Julia McCarthy [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 12:41 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sdd] 2.1.3.1 - I disagree. Here's a suggested alternative.I'm taking the survey right now and I find I really do still disagree with 2.1.3.1. I just had a conversation with Christine and she came up with this alternative wording that addresses my concern. Maybe we can make progress on this discussion before next meeting and then we won't have to spend much time on it.
Current survey version:
2.1.3.1 The SDD specification must not require knowledge of each resource type by the provisioning application or installation program in order to process the descriptor.
Proposed alternative:
2.1.3.1 The SDD specification must define information sufficient to enable performance of lifecycle operations by provisioning application or installation programs using standard resource interfaces, without requiring additional resource-specific code or knowledge.
Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line 349/8156
877-261-0391
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]