[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [hyades-dev] Re: Hyades Deployment
|
Hi Neil,
Yeah -- I see that there is no documentation
in the model for those classes...
The reason for adding these two classes
is to remove the tight coupling of CFGDeployableInstance and CFGLocation.
Historically, the DeployableInstance
classes were added because an SUT, TestComponent or Arbiter can be used
by more than one TestSuite, so we clearly couldn't have associations
from any of those classes to a Location (since the Location could clearly
change between TestSuites.) So, we realized these associations (from
the U2TP) as "instance" classes that are owned by the TestSuite
and contain a reference to the higher level classes.
More recently, we began discussing how
we could specify a few remaining scenarios that are common to load testing:
1) "I'd like to specify that certain
component instances should run in the same process or the same thread."
2) "I'd like to group certain component
instances that should be deployed in the same location."
1) "I'd like to have n runtime
instances of a given component, and I'd like to deploy a on NodeA, b on
NodeB, and c on NodeC (a+b+c == n)"
In looking at the model to answer your
questions, I saw that our model changes didn't capture #3, so I discussed
this with Serge and made a small addition to capture this as well. This
is essentially what we discussed in the meeting a few weeks ago, but since
the changes haven't been reviewed, it's not official yet.
Having said that, I'm attaching another
cut of the model. This contains the addition I just referenced, as
well as model documentation for the two classes you asked about. I
think it will all be clear from there. If not, please ask again.
:-)
Thanks,
--Joe
Joe Toomey
Senior Staff Software Engineer
Rational Software
IBM Software Group
tel: (781) 676-7668
fax: (781) 676-7640
Neil.Sanderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: hyades-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
05/15/2003 11:53 AM
Please respond to
hyades-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|
To
| hyades-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [hyades-dev] Re: Hyades
Deployment |
|
Hey Joe
Could you briefly explain the purpose of CFGArtifact and
CFGDeploymentSpec please.
Thanks
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: jptoomey [mailto:jptoomey@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 15 May 2003 15:09
To: hyades-dev
Subject: [hyades-dev] Re: Hyades Deployment
Hi Neil,
There have been some additions / clarifications to the test model that
have not yet been dropped because the Model group as a whole was not
ready to do a drop on Tuesday. Attached is a zip file containing
the
current common and test cat files -- I think the changes to the
configuration package may answer some of your questions. After taking
a
look at this model, if it doesn't shed light on all of your questions,
please let me know which things are still unclear (via e-mail, please --
I'm in a meeting all day), and I'll try to answer as quickly as I can.
Thanks,
--Joe
Joe Toomey
Senior Staff Software Engineer
Rational Software
IBM Software Group
tel: (781) 676-7668
fax: (781) 676-7640
Neil.Sanderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: hyades-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
05/15/2003 07:02 AM
Please respond to
hyades-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To
hyades-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[hyades-dev] Hyades Deployment
Hello All, particularly test-profile and configuration modellers,
I'd really appreciate it if somebody could help my understanding of the
configuration model, so I can progress the design of UI
extension-points.
I was going to attend the test-model meeting today to get answers to my
questions, but since its been cancelled I'm sending this mail.
I sent a question round last week regarding mappings between
CFGDeployableInstances and CFGLocations and I've attached it again to
this email because I think it still stands.
Basically I need to know :
1. Is a TPFDeployment intended to exist independently of any
TPFTestSuite (the association-by-reference between the two, would
suggest that it is)?
2. If (1) is true, then surely a TPFDeployment is simply a container for
a collection of CFGLocations, and can be referenced by multiple
TPFTestSuites...is this true?
3. If a TPFDeployment is independent, then surely it cannot contain any
references to TPFTestSuite-specific entities (i.e. the
CFGFDeployableInstances), however, at the moment it seems that it does.
Is there a need for some kind of TPFTestSuite-specific entity (e.g. a
TPFCFGMapping) which encapsulates and persists the mappings between
CFGDeployableInstances and CFGLocations? In this way a TPFTestSuite
could maintain multiple independent mappings into the same
TPFDeployment. Perhaps this is the intent of CFGArtifact, I don't know.
I may be way-off in my interpretation of the configuration model, and
perhaps my questions don't make sense, but if somebody from the test
model group could contact me and put me right (even if these issues
haven't been fully resolved yet) then it would really help.
Thanks in advance
Neil
Neil Sanderson
Product Development Manager
Scapa Technologies Ltd
125 McDonald Road
Edinburgh, EH7 4NW, Scotland.
Tel : +44 131 550 1753
email : Neil.Sanderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
hyades-dev mailing list
hyades-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hyades-dev
Attachment:
test_models.zip
Description: Zip archive