[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (CAMP-153) Two approaches to identify services in a DP?
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-153?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=36377#action_36377 ] Gilbert Pilz commented on CAMP-153: ----------------------------------- I'm not sure if I agree that services "should" be a first class entity in a Plan. Keep in mind that the ServiceSpecifications in a Plan are not a complete description of the service but rather an outline of the characteristics that are important to that application. The meaning is "find a service that matches all (or at least some) of these characteristics" *not* "create a service with these characteristics". That being said, I prefer to minimize the number of ways to support a set of use cases if there is no compelling reason for multiple solutions. > Two approaches to identify services in a DP? > -------------------------------------------- > > Key: CAMP-153 > URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-153 > Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Spec > Environment: CAMP Version 1.1 Draft 32 (dated: 5 December 2013). > Reporter: Martin Chapman > Assignee: Adrian Otto > Priority: Minor > > This is 2) from https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/camp-comment/201312/msg00000.html > " > 2) Is there a reason why there should be two approaches to identify services in a DP? > Example 4 in Section 4.2.2.1 demonstrates one approach. In this the "service" section > is not explicitly called out. It is defined under the "fulfillment" section which > is hidden under the "RequirementType" relation. > Example 5 demonstrates second approach. In this the "services" section is explicitly called out. > I feel that services should be a first class entity of a DP, and providing an abstraction to > explicitly identify them would make that status clear. Therefore, approach shown in example 5 > is better than that in example 4, imo. Is there any reason to keep both approaches? > If not, can the spec be prescriptive about one approach (my vote is for approach in example 5)." -- 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]