sdd message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.3.1 - ATTENTION CHRISTINE AND JOSH
- From: "Josh Allen" <jallen@macrovision.com>
- To: "Julia McCarthy" <julia@us.ibm.com>,"Christine Draper" <cdraper@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:21:12 -0800
I still disagree with this wording. The original
wording described how the declaration of a package's results can be used to
determine if the package can satisfy dependencies of other packages. I
think this will be key to realizing our use cases & don't think it should be
removed.
To resolve this it would help me to understand what others
object to about the original wording.
Thanks,
Josh
I see I missed part of the intent of Christine's comment. Here's a revised
proposal:
2.3.1 The SDD specification must support definition of
information that describes the results of solution deployment sufficient to
determine if resources are already installed.
Julia
McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line
349/8156
877-261-0391
----- Forwarded
by Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM on 03/16/2006
04:23 PM -----
Julia
McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
03/16/2006 01:49 PM |
|
There were
two alternatives to 2.3.1. Christine and Josh disagreed with alternative two -
the one most others agreed with. I have Christine's comments on this one so I'm
going to propose an alternative that I think will satisfy her disagreement. I
don't know Josh's reasons.
Here's Christine's comment: I think we should
remove the "to allow" statements, and just say it should define changes to
environment sufficient to identify whether the resource is already
installed.
So, Christine and Josh, would this wording remove your
objection:
2.3.1 The SDD specification must support definition of
information that describes the results of solution deployment sufficient to
determine if the deployment lifecycle operation is needed (if the current
hosting environment already matches the desired results).
If anyone else
objects to this new wording, please respond. Otherwise your agreement will be
assumed.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]