Re: [sdd] Alternate definition of artifact

[Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>]

Hi there,

I agree with the below part of the James's comment.

James Falkner wrote:
> 
> In that case, the value of defining payload is in allowing payload to be
> handled more efficiently by runtimes, if they know that it is never to
> be changed or parsed.
> 
> -jhf-

Here is my opinion regarding to this:
If a file is not parsed or interpreted in the deployment process,
it will be probably used by software itself in runtime. SDD should
consistently handle it as an opaque object in its context. These
may be called payload for the deployment package.

If a file is parsed or interpreted in the deployment process, it
needs to be specified in SDD specification. The data in the file
may be called metadata since the software won't needs them runtime.

While some metadata can describe property (for example, file names,
size, digest value ) of payload files, the metadata should be
kept in separate files from the payload. (payload is not modified.)


I think the critical need for distinction is whether it is
parsed or interpreted in the deployment process. If it is true,
what we need to define the term are the above two concepts. I'm
fine with "payload files", but not sure about files containing
metadata.


To tell the truth, it's not very clear to me why the word artifact
is used everywhere in our discussion. (this may be language problem
of me:-)

In my reference, the artifact is described as:
tool; object; man made object (often referring to primitive tools)

I think that's true for everything we are discussing. We are not
discussing about natural material.

  -Keisuke

P.S.
I'm sorry if I missed the point. A non-native speaker comment:-)