Wouldn’t this then be 2 distinct requirements?
Regards,
Debra
From: Christine
Draper [mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006
5:56 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.3.1 - ATTENTION
CHRISTINE AND JOSH
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.