Hi Jan, I'm just now catching up on this discussion ..
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, jan damborsky wrote: > The current plan is to behave in the same way as if old AI image > was used - that means if empty packages list was provided, > default list would be picked up from ai_manifest.defval.xml. > >> I understand we want to support the old tag, but why not >> support the old tag, but require at least 1 package name be specified? > > The reason is that current default AI manifest doesn't contain > list of packages, so it wouldn't be functional with new AI image. > > That said, may be we try to be too much nice in this point. > Given the fact that AI is evolving pretty quickly and more > fundamental changes are likely to occur, this might not be > the on the current list of rules it is reasonable to follow. > I am open to suggestions :-) I like this plan. I do however question the need for having an ai_manifest.defval.xml at all at this point. The only reason it was there was to meet the requirements of the XML defaults validator. Since in the case of AI, it really doesn't convey any useful information that can't be captured in the ai_manifest.xml itself, but rather obscures the workings of AI, I think we should just try getting rid of ai_manifest.defval.xml altogether. The default authority/repo as well as default values for partitioning/slicing can just be migrated over to ai_manifest.xml. The AI observability would be much better in that case. What do you think? Alok
