RE: [sdd] 2.3.1 - ATTENTION CHRISTINE AND JOSH

[Christine Draper <cdraper@us.ibm.com>]

I agree with Josh's point. I think the requirement should say something like:

2.3.1 The SDD specification must support definition of information that describes the results of solution deployment sufficient to:

1. determine if resources are already installed

2. determine if the package can be used to satisfy the dependencies of other packages

Regards,
Christine

Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX 78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482
"Josh Allen" <jallen@macrovision.com>

"Josh Allen" <jallen@macrovision.com>

03/17/2006 06:21 PM

To	Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Christine Draper/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc	<sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [sdd] 2.3.1 - ATTENTION CHRISTINE AND JOSH

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

---

From: Julia McCarthy [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:28 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Fw: [sdd] 2.3.1 - ATTENTION CHRISTINE AND 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

To	sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	[sdd] 2.3.1 - ATTENTION CHRISTINE AND JOSH

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.