[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1
OK, I'll withdraw my disagreement on this one, too - again with the proviso that "priority" is just one input into decision making, and not a guarantee that the highest-priority valid configuration will be applied..
Regards,
Christine
Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX 78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482
"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>
03/23/2006 03:50 PM |
|
Debra,
This may seem like a rather basic question, but can you give an example of what "prioritizing alternative configurations" mean, that wouldn't be covered by prioritizing topology/target environment?
Regards,
Chrisitne
Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX 78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482
"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>
03/23/2006 12:50 PM |
|
All,
On 2.1.4.1 I have a similar issue to 2.1.2.1.1. Prioritization of alternative configuration is not something that should be mandated by the author of a particular component, both because of external factors and overall solution requirements. At most, the author should be able to establish a preference, but I can't think of a good use case for that which isn't captured by specifying preferences for the target environment. Can anyone else? If not, I would propose:
PROPOSED:
2.1.4.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative configurations.
ORIGINAL:
2.1.4.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative configuration and identify a default and/or prioritizing of those alternatives.
Regards,
Christine
Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX 78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]