[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (CAMP-117) 4.3.3 Artifact Specification
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-117?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=35250#action_35250 ] Martin Chapman commented on CAMP-117: -------------------------------------- DeploymentPlan, ArtifactSpecifications, and ServiceSpecifications are non-litererals/non-terminals in the grammar. Directional Proposal Ensure that the word node always refers to a yaml node and not a non-terminal. Avoid the word type wrt non terminals. we have created a new issue to make sure that the pseudo schema is suitable for camp yaml (e.g. add to the 1.7 pseudo-schema a non-terminal rule). This is CAMP-147 > 4.3.3 Artifact Specification > ---------------------------- > > Key: CAMP-117 > URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-117 > 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-92 > Currently reads: > ***** > This type describes an artifact of the application. > ***** > 1) type -> node? Yes? > 2) cf my comments on "general representation" > 3) It isn't clear if this is a production or an example. BTW, I was confused by the example not including the ArtifactSpecification node so I could judge my location in the PDP. > You write: > ***** > name: String ? > description: String ? > tags: ? > - String + > artifactType: String > content: ContentSpecification > requirements: ? > - > RequirementSpecification + > ***** > When: > ***** > ArtifactSpecification > name: String ? > description: String ? > tags: ? > - String + > artifactType: String > content: ContentSpecification > requirements: ? > - > RequirementSpecification + > ***** > Would be clearer, given the similarity in syntaxes, at least to me. > For that matter, I would have put the production (if that is what it is) at the end of 4.3.3 and not at the front. So I have all the definitions before it. > 4) BTW, since artifactType and content are both true, can I then have: > ***** > ArtifactSpecification > name: String ? > description: String ? > tags: ? > - String + > artifactType: String > requirements: ? > - > RequirementSpecification + > content: ContentSpecification > ***** > ? > The ordering of nodes question that I posed earlier in another context. > 5) The "production" in 4.3.2 DeploymentPlan indicates that ArtifactSpecification occurs at least once or more times. (+) But the language in 4.3.3, addresses an artifact described by the ArtifactSpecification with MAY be located language. Better to move the MAY language elsewhere, say as 4.3.3.4 Location of Artifacts. -- 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]