[OASIS Issue Tracker] Updated: (CAMP-117) 4.3.3 Artifact Specification

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

     [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-117?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Martin Chapman  updated CAMP-117:
---------------------------------

    Proposal: 
in 4.3 delete "Note the description of the structures and information in this section utilize YAMLs nomenclature."

in the rest of 4.3 in any psuedo-schema change the notation from:

 literal:
   -
     non-literal +

to:

literal: non-literal[] ?

for example a plan  will look like:

name: String ?
description: String ?
tags: String[] ?
campVersion: String
origin: String ?
artifacts: ArtifactSpecification[] ?
services:  ServiceSpecification[] ?



  was:
in 4.3 delete "Note the description of the structures and information in this section utilize YAMLs nomenclature."

in the rest of 4.3 in any psuedo-schema change the notation from:

 literal:
   -
     non-literal +

to:

literal: non-literal[] ?


> 4.3.3 Artifact Specification
> ----------------------------
>
>                 Key: CAMP-117
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-117
>             Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Public Review
>            Reporter: Martin Chapman 
>
> From the comment list:  https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/camp-comment/201309/msg00078.html
> TAB issue: https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TAB-92
> Currently reads:
> *****
> This type describes an artifact of the application.
> *****
> 1) type -> node? Yes?
> 2) cf my comments on "general representation"
> 3) It isn't clear if this is a production or an example. BTW, I was confused by the example not including the ArtifactSpecification node so I could judge my location in the PDP.
> You write:
> *****
> name: String ?
> description: String ?
> tags: ?
>   - String +
> artifactType: String
> content: ContentSpecification
> requirements: ?
>   -
>     RequirementSpecification +
> *****
> When:
> *****
>   ArtifactSpecification
>     name: String ?
>     description: String ?
>     tags: ?
>       - String +
>     artifactType: String
>     content: ContentSpecification
>     requirements: ?
>       -
>          RequirementSpecification +
> *****
> Would be clearer, given the similarity in syntaxes, at least to me.
> For that matter, I would have put the production (if that is what it is) at the end of 4.3.3 and not at the front. So I have all the definitions before it.
> 4) BTW, since artifactType and content are both true, can I then have:
> *****
>   ArtifactSpecification
>     name: String ?
>     description: String ?
>     tags: ?
>       - String +
>     artifactType: String
>     requirements: ?
>       -
>          RequirementSpecification +
>     content: ContentSpecification
> *****
> ?
> The ordering of nodes question that I posed earlier in another context.
> 5) The "production" in 4.3.2 DeploymentPlan indicates that ArtifactSpecification occurs at least once or more times. (+) But the language in 4.3.3, addresses an artifact described by the ArtifactSpecification with MAY be located language. Better to move the MAY language elsewhere, say as 4.3.3.4 Location of Artifacts. 

-- 
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