[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (CAMP-31) State change mechanism is unclear
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-31?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=32192#action_32192 ]
Alex Heneveld commented on CAMP-31:
-----------------------------------
good point, that it is a style issue
seems to me that we want operations (CAMP-9) in any event, for other things, and with operations we have a means to achieve state transitions. the question is whether we want the spec to mandate the convergence/declarative style additionally. my view is that this would be an unnecessary burden on the platform or model implementer, and we should not require it. (the platform or model implementer is free to offer it as an extension.)
PROPOSAL: remove this section altogether. in the section on operations we will note that operations may result in state changes, and that operations MAY include "suspend" and "resume".
(if this proposal is accepted let's note the additional requirement in CAMP-9.)
> State change mechanism is unclear
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: CAMP-31
> URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-31
> Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Spec
> Reporter: Jacques Durand
> Assignee: Jacques Durand
>
> (filed jointly with Tom Rutt)
> In CAMP draft there seems to be a confusion in section 6.11 about the name of a state and the name of the operation leading to that state.
> -----"{"new_state" : "<new-state-value>"}
> Where, new_state specifies the new desired value for the application state. This specification defines two such values: "suspend", and "resume,"..."-----
> But resume/suspend are operations - not "new states".
> In fact, it seems more natural to control lifecycle (state transitions) with operation names (like in CIMI) rather than by stating the "new state". The latter may appear more RESTful but is rather limited for controlling enterprise apps.
> The specification should clarify the state-changinf mechanism. Using operation names in requests instead of "new state" has some advantages:
> (a) There may be more than one way to get to a new state from a current state (so using state name is not enough).
> (b) There might be a need for operations that don't change state. E.g. an op that verifies whether or not a PDP is deployable on a platform even before we try to deploy it.
> Unless we are sure (a) and (b) never apply then we can use "new state" names (in which case 6.11 still need to be fixed). But that needs some investigation.
--
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]