OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sdd message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [sdd] [requirements] use case for 2.1.6.1: sidegrade (side install)



...
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Falkner [mailto:james.falkner@sun.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:55 PM
> To: Patton, John H
> Cc: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [sdd] [requirements] use case for 2.1.6.1: 
> sidegrade (side install)
> 
> Patton, John H wrote:
> 
> >> Customer is running particular customized version of software, 
> >> including custom data that was created after the initial 
> install, and 
> >> custom configuration tuned for their environment.  This is running 
> >> either in a production environment or development 
> environment, with 
> >> high availability requirements (i.e. can't be taken down except 
> >> during scheduled maintenance periods).
> > 
> > 
> > [John Patton]
> > Would this not be met with requirement 2.4?  The user can decide if 
> > they want to install the new version in a sidegrade fashion by 
> > installing it as a second instance?
> 
> I think you meant requirement 2.4.3 which reads:
> 
> "The SDD specification must support the ability for the 
> author to define parameters to allow multiple instances of 
> the same solution to be deployed to the same environment(s). 
> The SDD specification must support the ability for the author 
> to define where only one instance of a solution (a 
> "singleton") may be deployed to an environment."
> 
> That one, taken with 2.1.4.3 ("SDD specification must support 
> the ability for the author to define information about and 
> the ability to aggregate a snapshotted configuration for 
> subsequent installation") and 2.3.5 ("The SDD specification 
> must support the ability for the author to define the 
> information to enable a provisioning application or 
> installation program to ensure that new 
> installations/updates/uninstalls will not impact existing 
> installed components"), should cover this use case.
> 
> Summary: I agree that this requirement (2.1.6.1) can be removed.
> 
> -jhf-

Thanks for filling in the holes...  I am clearly focused on more than
one thing today.  :-)  Yeah, I meant 2.4.3.  I agree with you on 2.4.3,
2.1.4.3 and 2.3.5 all working together to solve the use case in
question.  I'll remove this from the survey tomorrow.

Cheers!

/john patton/


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]