Re: [sdd] Issue 31

[Randy George <randyg@us.ibm.com>]

I had a similar thought where "DeploymentDescriptor"
was too generic and we might want a more descriptive name to declare that
this file is a deployment descriptor that is compliant with our standard.
 As mentioned, the current value is "DeploymentDescriptor".
 Suggestions of a better name?  

Regards,
Randy George

Senior Technical Staff Member
Provisioning Architecture
Tivoli Software, IBM Software Group
Austin, TX  
(512) 838-0752     T/L 678-0752

Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>

07/14/2006 03:20 AM

To	sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
cc	Randy George/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Subject	Re: [sdd] Issue 31

FYI,
The practice in the ACS is similar to what Randy proposed. The deployment
descriptor is just listed as one of a content in the ACS archive, which
is equivalent to being listed only in the "File" element in the
case of SDD
PackageDescriptor.

The "type" attribute of ACS "Content" element include
"DeploymentDescriptor"
as a possible value. To allow opting among different deployment engines,
we
also allowed anyURI for the "type" value. This would effectively
help to
distinguish specific type of deployment system (and its deployment descriptor).
To distinguish SDD deploymentDescriptor from a CDL or another type, it
may be
better to reserve more specific name here. At least the "purpose"
value
should be extensible to accommodate them.

Regards,
Keisuke Fukui



Randy George wrote:
> 
> Another approach might even be simpler.   What if we remove the
> DeploymentDescriptor element from the PackageDescriptor?  We
have a 
> defined enum value for a File purpose called "deploymentDescriptor".
  
>  Thus, we can state that to be fully compliant with the SDD 
> specification, a PackageDescriptor MUST contain a File with a 
> purpose="deploymentDescriptor".  This element would
reference an XML 
> document that is compliant with the deployment descriptor section
of 
> this specification.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Randy George
> 
> Senior Technical Staff Member
> Provisioning Architecture
> Tivoli Software, IBM Software Group
> Austin, TX  
> (512) 838-0752     T/L 678-0752
> 
> 
> *Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS*
> 
> 07/12/2006 01:46 PM
> 
>                  
> To
>                  
> cc
>                  sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject
>                  [sdd]
Issue 31
> 
> 
>                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issue 31: Is the correspondence between deploymentDescriptor and the
> file element defining the deployment descriptor simply the fact that
the 
> pathname matches? This seems odd. It seems more usual for the 
> deploymentDescriptor to reference the file instead. Currently, the
> answer is yes - the only correspondence is the matching URI and pathname.
> 
> In researching this, I've discovered that the situation isn't what
I 
> thought. In v1 of the iudd schema files had an ID and were referenced
> with an IDref. Now, files are referenced (at least in artifact elements)
> by referring to the same URI used in the file element. That is, the
URI 
> used in an artifact is simply a pointer to a file element. If the
URI in 
> deployment descriptor is intended to be used the same way - as a 
> pointer, then we just need to document this clearly in the 
> deploymentDescriptor element text.
> 
> Here's what the xml would look like for deploymentDescriptor element
and 
> the file element for the deployment descriptor.
> <deploymentDescriptor>sdd.xml</deploymentDescriptor>
> 
> <file charEncoding="" compression="false" length="0"
pathname="sdd.xml" 
> purpose="deploymentdescriptor">
> 
> <ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="_http://www.ibm.com_ 
> <http://www.ibm.com/>"></ds:DigestMethod>
> <ds:DigestValue>0</ds:DigestValue>
> </file>
> 
> Randy or Christine, can you verify that the intent is for the URI
used 
> in deploymentDescriptor to be a pointer to a file element?
> 
> Julia McCarthy
> Tivoli Development
> Deployment Engine Design
> julia@us.ibm.com
> 349/8156
> 877-261-0391
>