Neeme Praks wrote:
Berin Loritsch ::
Let me make this really simple (you guys are thinking too hard).
Proposal 1
unified container that uses profiles
Proposal 2
multi-tiered set of containers
We can worry about the details of how to proceed from there.
OK, now I re-read your original email and found out that I had
misinterpreted the information there. Your focus was on "unified" vs.
"multi".
I do not really see a conflict there, I would say that unified
container with profiles can be used to implement the multi-tiered
approach.
In other words, I think you are comparing apples to oranges here.
Proposal 1 is about implementation and proposal 2 is about different
"application spaces" or "tiers".
I would rephrase your proposal as:
proposal 1 (stays as is):
-------------------------
unified container that uses profiles to implement multi-tiered container
(the question if the "profile" will be hard-wired or if it will be
more dynamic with some sort of configuration files is already an
implementation detail)
IMO, this proposal could also be rephrased as "unified toolkit that is
used to implement containers in multiple tiers".
That's my take on proposal 1.
proposal 2:
-----------
becomes irrelevant?
So, I support proposal 1.
dito.
Steve.
Rgds,
Neeme
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
