Yes, I agree with your concerns Shaheed! Please find my comments below: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Shaheed Haque <shahh...@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > OK, I get that argument. But consider that multiple subscriptions all > using a single deployment spec was the previous model, and now we have > inverted that cardinality completely. > > Not exactly, we support multiple subscriptions for Multi-Tenant applications but not for Single-Tenant applications. This is again due to the reason I have explained in the previous response. May be we can improve this in a minor release. BTW the term Subscription has now being changed to Application SignUp. > > To my knowledge, in addition to the generic automation of single cartridge > subscriptions we provided our Stratos users, at least two users have > significant investment in dynamically generating and > subscribing/unsubscribing cartridges on-the-fly. Converting these to use > single application cartridges is necessary work needed to get to 4.1, but > all these usages will now require substantive rework to manage the opposite > cardinality w.r.t. deployment policies. > > Here we deploy an application in the context of Tenant not for User. Yes in this release it is not possible to share Single-Tenant applications accross tenants. However each tenant can deploy the same application with a different deployment policy by using a different application id. > I'm all in favour of progress, and change where unavoidable, but this > seems to gratuitously change the model for the bulk of singleton cartridge > users in favour of the currently non-existent grouping users. (And yes, I > am aware of the paradox that we are VERY interested in the grouping). > Yes I agree, may be we can have a separate discussion on this and propose improvements for the next minor release. Thanks
