Re: [sdd] File Purpose Attribute

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

FYI,

In the case of AAD, we have similar attribute "type" for each of Content element
(equivalent to "file" element in the packageDescriptor). The File purpose
attribute sounds to the corresponding attribute to this. The below is a part of
description from the ACS specification 1.0:

/aaf:Contents/aaf:Content/@type
   This OPTIONAL attribute indicates the type of Application Content. This attribute can be used
   as key information in the GetContents operation in ApplicationArchive portType. The
   following QName is reserved for the value of this attribute:
   - aaf:DeploymentDescriptor
   The type of Application Contents which describe the configuration of the application.

Here we specified only one value "aaf:DeploymentDescriptor" and left the rest
to an external URI, which is a qualified name. The reason why we didn't specify
complete set of possible value is that we wanted allow various type of content
(i.e., file in the archive), which may be different in its structure depending
on the hosting environment. Strictly speaking, even the aaf:DeploymentDescriptor
may mean either a CDL or another type of Deployment Descriptor. So we thought
that the external URI that represents a strict type of "Content" may serve better
than predefined set of values. All these are considerations in the ACS perspective
and SDD TC may define a set of permitted/recommended values for this.

Regards,
Keisuke Fukui


Randy George wrote:
> 
> In the current specification, there is a purpose attribute that can be 
> declared for each file in the SDD package.  However, we have not defined 
> "standard values" for this attribute.  At a minimum, with the separation 
> of the package from the deployment descriptor, a file element needs to 
> point to the deployment descriptor.   Thus, it would be wise to have a 
> standard value for this file purpose attribute, e.g. 
> deploymentDescriptor.  This provides a standard approach for obtaining 
> the deployment descriptor xml document from the package.
> 
> In addition, I think that we should define some other common files, e.g. 
> EULA, ReadMe and ResposeFile.
> 
> Thoughts/Comments?
> 
> Regards,
> Randy George
> 
> Senior Technical Staff Member
> Provisioning Architecture
> Tivoli Software, IBM Software Group
> Austin, TX  
> (512) 838-0752     T/L 678-0752