Hi Alok,
On 03/20/09 17:00, Alok Aggarwal wrote: > 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? I like that plan. But looking at the ai_manifest.defval.xml, with respect to the partitioning/slicing info it seems that it serves slightly different purpose as it feeds AI engine with default values which have special meaning. I think then when moved to ai_manifest.xml, at this point they would likely make manifest confusing. After taking a look, my feeling is, that partitioning/slicing stuff might be one of candidates for redesign. I would rather not touch anything in this area for now, as any change there would be high risky from my point of view. That said, since I have just taken quick look, I might be not correct in this point. Please let me know what you think. Thank you, Jan
