[OASIS Issue Tracker] Updated: (CAMP-31) State change mechanism is unclear

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

     [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-31?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Gilbert Pilz updated CAMP-31:
-----------------------------

    Proposal: 
- Add the use of operation names to control state changes. Define a core set of operations for core state transitions. (Of course that does not prevent some platform from automatically transitioning to some core states e.g. at loading time, nor to add new operations leading to a core state). The request could use: {"operation": "suspend"}
- still  allow as well  for the "declarative" way to change state {"new_state": "suspended"}. This would mean that a platform may have to decide of a default transition path in case more than one exists.

Concrete proposal: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/camp/download.php/50876/camp-spec-v1.1-issue-31-v3.doc

  was:
- Add the use of operation names to control state changes. Define a core set of operations for core state transitions. (Of course that does not prevent some platform from automatically transitioning to some core states e.g. at loading time, nor to add new operations leading to a core state). The request could use: {"operation": "suspend"}
- still  allow as well  for the "declarative" way to change state {"new_state": "suspended"}. This would mean that a platform may have to decide of a default transition path in case more than one exists.

Concrete proposal: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/camp/download.php/50832/camp-spec-v1.1-issue-31-v2.doc


Update to v3 proposal which clarifies that representationSkew applies only to the resource of which it is part and that representationSkew is not rolled up from contained resources to containing resources.

> 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