[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Issue Comment Edited: (CAMP-116) 4.3 Deployment Plan Schema - well-formed/conforms to description
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-116?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=35245#action_35245 ] Alex Heneveld edited comment on CAMP-116 at 10/15/13 10:06 AM: --------------------------------------------------------------- Correction to previous post -- OP has picked up a bug introduced in the YAML spec between YAML 1.1 "Working Draft 2004-12-28" [1] and "Final Draft -- 2005-01-18" [2]. 3.3.1 should refer to the following chapters (plural, not singular as it currently stands). This bug should be brought to the attention of the YAML authors. However I do not feel it is likely to be a significant source of confusion. OP's suggestion to clarify our reference is a good one. We could say "well-formed YAML, particularly in accordance with §3.3.1 and §4 onwards of that spec". [1] http://yaml.org/spec/current.html [2] http://yaml.org/spec/1.1/ was (Author: alex.heneveld): Re (4) I think the OP has misread the YAML spec. §3.3.1, as he notes, discusses "well-formed" by reference to Chapter 4. However he is incorrect in his assertions re Chapter 4. That chapter is on "syntax" and begins with the following sentence: Following are the BNF productions defining the syntax of YAML character streams. ... > 4.3 Deployment Plan Schema - well-formed/conforms to description > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CAMP-116 > URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-116 > Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Public Review > Reporter: Martin Chapman > > From the comment list: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/camp-comment/201309/msg00078.html > TAB issue: https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TAB-91 > 4.3 Deployment Plan Schema currently reads: > ***** > A Platform Deployment Package (PDP) SHALL contain a single Deployment Plan. [PDP-11] The Deployment Plan SHALL be located at the root of the PDP archive. [PDP-12] The Deployment Plan file SHALL be named "camp.yaml" and SHALL consist of a well-formed YAML 1.1 [YAML 1.1] file that conforms to the description provided in this section. [PDP-13] Note the description of the structures and information in this section utilizes YAML's nomenclature. > ***** > A variety of issues but I will try to cover them in one comment. > 1) I would re-word the first sentence to: A Platform Deployment Package (PDP) contains a single Deployment Plan node (4.3.2). > 2) The second sentence: A Deployment Plan node is the root of a Platform Deployment Package (PDP). > 3) new sentence: A Platform Deployment Package (PDP) is represented by a file named "camp.yaml." > Question: Under what circumstances could multiple camp.yaml files exist in the same directory? (May be a dumb question but I haven't finished reading the CAMP spec, yet.) > 4) The second clause of the last sentence is what caught my eye originally: > "... SHALL consist of a well-formed YAML 1.1 [YAML 1.1] file that conforms to the description provided in this section. [PDP-13]" > Well, YAML 1.1 says for well-formed: "A well-formed character stream must match the productions specified in the next chapter. " That's in 3.3.1. > The next chapter is 4, which is Production Conventions. Which does not include things like character sets. > It may be the case that if you trace out all the productions cited but not represented in 4 that it would be complete, but I would not want to put money on that bet. > Possibly elsewhere, let's say: > A well-formed CAMP file: > 1) Conforms to the productions of YAML1.1, chapters 5-10, inclusive, excluding examples, and > 2) Conforms to the productions of CAMP 1.1, chapter 4. > 5) The last sentence reads: > ***** > Note the description of the structures and information in this section utilizes YAML's nomenclature. > ***** > What about other sections? And I think we need to more precise about what nomenclature in particular is being used. > BTW, I noticed that the word "TAB" does not appear in the draft. I would think that sort of syntax trip-up would have been front and center. For some reason, "ident" doesn't appear either. > See YAML Example 5.12. Invalid Use of Tabs - where it states: > ***** > ERROR: > Tabs may appear inside comments and quoted or block scalar content. Tabs must not appear elsewhere, such as in indentation and separation spaces. > ***** > Just me but I would want to call something that fundamental to the reader's attention. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]