[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]