Dave Miner wrote: > Jack Schwartz wrote: >> On 05/21/09 15:52, Ethan Quach wrote: >>> Jack, >>> >>> At this point, I don't see the derived profile work having any >>> requirements on the XML parsing work. On the client side, >>> if/when a profile is derived, that all happens before we get to >>> the parsing phase, and hence whatever gets derived is then >>> passed to the parser, and the parser shouldn't be aware that >>> derivation had occurred at all. >>> >>> On the server side, there might be impact on the installadm >>> tooling, in that for cases where a derived profile is specified, >>> parsing wouldn't happen on the server at all. >> OK. Makes sense. On the server, when derived profiles are >> specified, there may not yet be anything to validate since that file >> doesn't exist. >> >> I haven't seen much on the idea of having derived fields in the AI >> manifest, instead of derived profiles. I'll attend your meeting >> later today to discuss this. This can impact the organization of >> manifests. >> > > It seems we're having a terminology problem. An AI manifest is the > "profile", right?
Yes. They've been synonymous to me because I've been staring into that "painting" for way too long. We should clarify that work piece to be derived manifests, derived AI manifest, or derived <blah> manifest ... -ethan
