OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

camp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: FW: [camp-comment] CAMP 1.1 Working Draft 19 feedback



From: Martin Chapman
Sent: 08 August 2013 14:46
To: Paul Montgomery; camp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [camp-comment] CAMP 1.1 Working Draft 19 feedback




Many thanks for the query. The issue has been logged [1] and opened and the TC will be considering a response in due course.

I will inform you once a resolution has been agreed.






[1] https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-79


From: Paul Montgomery [mailto:paul.montgomery@RACKSPACE.COM]
Sent: 01 August 2013 23:33
To: camp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [camp-comment] CAMP 1.1 Working Draft 19 feedback


In section 4.2.1 on Types, I found this text:


"Deployment Plans can contain descriptions of artifacts, services and their relationships. However, it is outside the scope of this specification to provide detailed definitions of these entities. Instead Deployment Plans use ‘type’ nodes to identify these things. ‘Type’ nodes are Strings that describe entities that are managed by CAMP, but whose value and semantics are defined outside the CAMP specification. For example, a group of PaaS providers could agree to use the artifact type “org.rpm:RPM” to identify RPM packages. Line 03 in Example 1, above, is an example of the use of such a type." …


How will interoperability between vendors be achieved?  Will OASIS manage/approve common artifact types in the future?


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]