[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.2.1.1
Hi Christine, Our difference here may just be the interpretation of prioritization
vs. preference. I didn’t envision a situation where a prioritization
was not overrideable by the install operator – so it sounds like we are
in agreement. Preference is a word I generally associate with the end
user, rather than the author – I think that use of the word here is
likely to be misunderstood. The user specifies a preference, the author a
priority. I also disagree strongly that vendor preferences should be
coded in install program logic or that one environment working “better”
than another is substantially subjective. In my opinion, one of the key
objectives of the SDD is to surface the type of information that previously
would have been “secretly” encoded. That information is
necessary for SIs to make knowledgeable choices about subsequent components
that they may add to a composition or for tools that might analyze topologies
and make choices about the deployment. I also think that target environments is an incomplete
substitution for topologies, and prefer the original use. 2.1.2.1.1 The SDD specification must support the
definition of alternative topologies and target environments and provide for optional
prioritization of those alternatives to assist the install operator in making his
choice. Regards, Debra From: Christine
Draper [mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com] John (and
anyone else), |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]