[OASIS Issue Tracker] (TOSCA-136) CSD02 - Need rules to assure non-collision (uniqueness) of requirement or capability names

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TOSCA-136?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=48750#comment-48750 ] 

Matthew Rutkowski  commented on TOSCA-136:
------------------------------------------

Here is the outline and text placeholder I have so far in WD03:
TOSCA Simple Profiles allows template authors to declare their own types and templates and assign them simple names with no apparent namespaces.  Since TOSCA Service Templates can import other service templates and service templates can be “nested” rules are needed so that TOSCA Orchestrators know how to avoid collisions and apply their own namespaces when import and nesting occur. 

The following cases are considered:
•	Duplicate property names within same entity (e.g., Node Type, Node Template, Relationship Type, etc.)
•	Duplicate requirement names within same entity (e.g., Node Type, Node Template, Relationship Type, etc.)
•	Duplicate capability names within same entity (e.g., Node Type, Node Template, Relationship Type, etc.)
•	Collisions that occurs from “import” for any Type or Template.
•	Collision that occurs from “nesting” for any Type or Template.


> CSD02 - Need rules to assure non-collision (uniqueness) of requirement or capability names
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TOSCA-136
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TOSCA-136
>             Project: OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Profile-YAML
>    Affects Versions: CSD2
>            Reporter: Matthew Rutkowski 
>            Assignee: Thomas Spatzier 
>             Fix For: CSD2
>
>
> When defining node types/templates we allow authors to defined named requirements (or capabilities). How do we prevent (name) collision if we allow others to augment a type or template definition with their own requirements  or capabilities?
> For example,with the following node template:
> node_templates:
>   mysql:
>     type: tosca.nodes.MySQL
>     properties:
>       mysql_root_password: { get_input: my_mysql_rootpw }
>       mysql_port: { get_input: my_mysql_port }
>     requirements:
>       - host: db_server
> What happens of a second named requirement of "host" is added? 
> What happens if a new Node Type that derives from MySQL is created and attempts to use the requirement name "host" which is already defined on the MySQL type?
> ----
> Need prose and/or examples to discuss if these are errors or are side effects created (such as "choice" of "host".  
> ----
> In relation to this last thought, another bug will be opened in JIRA to ask this question. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)