[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (CAMP-21) Clarify whether App Developers/Admins can assume what the Assembly Template tree looks like until post-deploy

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

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=32573#action_32573 ] 

Gilbert Pilz commented on CAMP-21:
----------------------------------

There is a flip-side to this in that we all acknowledge that getting an application to work on a new platform will, in the majority of cases, require some "hand wiring" where the Application Admin "connects" Application Component Templates to the correct/appropriate Platform Component Templates. Assuming the Application Admin is interested in preserving this effort, there must be some way to capture a serialization of the Assembly Template tree for later re-registration on the same or similar platforms.

So it seems that, at a minimum, a PDP must contain the application artifacts (war files, gem files, sql files, etc.) and some amount of CAMP-specific metadata that describes those artifacts. The PDP can, optionally, also contain a serialization of the Assembly Template and its Application Component Templates. We need to think about what a CAMP implementation may/should/must do when presented with an Assembly Template tree that does not fit the way it models that type of application. On top of this we need to figure out how Application Component Requirements and Platform Component Requirements fit into the mix.

> Clarify whether App Developers/Admins can assume what the Assembly Template tree looks like until post-deploy
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CAMP-21
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-21
>             Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Spec
>            Reporter: Anish Karmarkar
>            Assignee: Gilbert Pilz
>            Priority: Critical
>
> The resources described by CAMP (e.g. Assembly Template, Application Component Template) represent (among other things) points of management control. Different providers may support different levels of management granularity. For, example, consider the Tomcat sample application. This application is made up of a single WAR file (sample.war) that contains a static HTML file (index.html), a JSP file (hello.jsp), and a servlet class (Hello.class).
> One provider could choose to model this application as an Assembly Template with a single Application Component Template consisting of the sample.war file. Another provider could choose to model the application with multiple Application Component Templates - one for the static, index.html file and one for the Servlet/JSP files (hello.jsp and Hello.class). It depends on the level of management granularity implemented by the provider.
> Unless they have out-of-band knowledge of their target platform, App Developers/Admins can't assume anything about the structure of the post-deploy Assembly Template tree other than the fact that one app => one Assembly Template. Any assumptions they do make about this structure may constrain the portability of their app to other platforms.
> [This issue was raised by Gilbert Pilz and was drupal issue # 1092

-- 
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