[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=36401#action_36401 ] Adrian Otto commented on CAMP-153: ---------------------------------- Consider the two current formats for the same use case today: === FORMAT ONE === Request: POST /plans HTTP/1.1 Host: api.solum.io Content-Type: application/x-yaml Content-Length: ... # Adrian's Example 1 (EX1) - Make a Plan for building a Python application camp_version: CAMP 1.1 artifacts: - name: My Python App artifact_type: solum_git_pull content: { href: http://github.com/some/project } - requirements: - requirement_type: solum_git_pull solum_language_pack: 123abab-456abab-bab789-478459 fulfillment: id:build # See "Build Service" in services section below services: - name: Build Service id: build href: http://api.solum.io/services/7 Resonse: HTTP/1.1 201 Created Location: http://api.solum.io/plans/1 === FORMAT TWO === Request: POST /plans HTTP/1.1 Host: api.solum.io Content-Type: application/x-yaml Content-Length: ... # Adrian's Example 1 (EX1) - Make a Plan for building a Python application camp_version: CAMP 1.1 artifacts: - name: My Python App artifact_type: solum_git_pull content: { href: http://github.com/some/project } - requirements: - requirement_type: solum_git_pull solum_language_pack: 123abab-456abab-bab789-478459 fulfillment: name: Build Service id: build href: http://api.solum.io/services/7 Resonse: HTTP/1.1 201 Created Location: http://api.solum.io/plans/1 Currently both of these formats are legal. Upon filing this issue, I felt that having two ways of doing the same thing would lead to additional complexity in the spec and related implementations. However, there is a good reason for having two expressions of this. It's a way to hint to the model interpreter that there should be ONE instance of the service used by multiple artifacts. That's why using a fulfillment id makes sense. When you want MULTIPLE instances of the service, you can list them individually. That use case justifies both of the formats. I plan to move to CNA. > 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 4.2.2.1 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]