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: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (CAMP-153) Two approaches to identify services in a DP?

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-153?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=36377#action_36377 ] 

Gilbert Pilz commented on CAMP-153:

I'm not sure if I agree that services "should" be a first class entity in a Plan. Keep in mind that the ServiceSpecifications in a Plan are not a complete description of the service but rather an outline of the characteristics that are important to that application. The meaning is "find a service that matches all (or at least some) of these characteristics" *not* "create a service with these characteristics".

That being said, I prefer to minimize the number of ways to support a set of use cases if there is no compelling reason for multiple solutions.

> Two approaches to identify services in a DP?
> --------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CAMP-153
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-153
>             Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Spec
>         Environment: CAMP Version 1.1 Draft 32 (dated: 5 December 2013).
>            Reporter: Martin Chapman 
>            Assignee: Adrian Otto
>            Priority: Minor
> This is 2) from https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/camp-comment/201312/msg00000.html
> "
> 2) Is there a reason why there should be two approaches to identify services in a DP?
> Example 4 in Section demonstrates one approach. In this the "service" section
> is not explicitly called out. It is defined under the "fulfillment" section which 
> is hidden under the "RequirementType" relation.
> Example 5 demonstrates second approach. In this the "services" section is explicitly called out.
> I feel that services should be a first class entity of a DP, and providing an abstraction to
> explicitly identify them would make that status clear. Therefore, approach shown in example 5
> is better than that in example 4, imo. Is there any reason to keep both approaches?
> If not, can the spec be prescriptive about one approach (my vote is for approach in example 5)."

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]