[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (CAMP-5) Suggest to simplify {Application,Platform} Component {Requirements,Capability}

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

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-5?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=31724#action_31724 ] 

Jacques Durand  commented on CAMP-5:
------------------------------------

The above proposal seems OK although I'd wait to see the issue about possible merger of App Components and Platform Components resolved first.. But I would simplify along another aspect: : Requirements and Capabilities seem to me pretty much the same thing (same entity or resource type). Both are displaying values or  ranges of values for each attributes, both have same serialization. They just happen to be used for different purpose by different roles. Both boil down to  "capabilities" that could be either offered (by a Platform) or required (by an Assembly template). So I would give same media type to both: "Capability". 
So,  in a Platform I would see an attribute named "componentCapabilities" (an array of Capability resources) , while in an Appl COmp Template I would see "requiredComponentCapabilities" (also an array of Capability resources) .


> Suggest to simplify {Application,Platform} Component {Requirements,Capability}
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CAMP-5
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-5
>             Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Spec
>            Reporter: Anish Karmarkar
>
> Instead of talking about
>   1.  Application Component Requirement
>   2.  Application Component Capability
>   3.  Platform Component Requirement
>   4.  Platform Component Capability
> I suggest we simplify these terms to just Capability and Requirement. Rationale is that, since these structures are all likely to be very unique, we should actually be talking about (and introducing types for) "Application Component X Requirement" etc., which would be overkill. Hence, my suggestion to use only one simple type for each.
> However, as Mark pointed out, there are differences between these types on the Application and Platform side regarding whether or not they are required, etc. My sense is that we'd stand to gain more from simplification, though.
> [This issues was raised by Tobias and was drupal issue # 1032]

-- 
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