Shawn Walker wrote: > Sarah Jelinek wrote: >> -The user starts 1000 AI installs via some scripts. None of the >> systems being installed have a 'head' for the user to monitor the >> installation. They rely on 'pinging' or some other mechanism to >> determine if the install succeeded. In the case being proposed above, >> the user wouldn't know why the system was 'hung', waiting for their >> input. And, they would not likely be aware that AI went interactive >> without their specific intervention. So, introducing interactive >> behavior is really unexpected from the users point of view. >> >> One thought I had that we might consider is a way for the user to >> tell AI to go 'interactive' in the event of a failure. That is, the >> default behavior is always automatic, but in the case where users >> know they can manage the systems being installed, allow them to >> enable this interactive experience in the event of failures. We meet >> the requirements for AI by doing this, I believe. >> >> Thoughts? > > If I was managing 1,000 installs, I would hope there would be a > central management console that would show me the status/progress of > each and allow me to remotely, interactively deal with issues as they > arise since I might not be physically located near any of the systems > in question.
This is an interesting thought. And, if we provided something like this, it is still outside the scope of what the AI client should provide itself in terms of adding a default interactive experience for error handling. But, I agree that it would be nice to provide a management console for this type of scenario. thanks, sarah ****** > > Cheers,
