[OASIS Issue Tracker] (CAMP-169) CLONE -Feedback/Questions on CAMP Version 1.1 Working Draft 32 (Dated: 5 December 2013)

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

    [ https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-169?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=36981#comment-36981 ] 

Gilbert Pilz commented on CAMP-169:
-----------------------------------

After discussing this and related issues with Adrian, we decided it would make sense to see what Devdatta's proposal to restrict shared Service Specifications to the "services" section would look like.

The following link is a first cut at a proposal along these lines:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/camp/download.php/52658/camp-spec-v1.1-wd40-169.doc

> CLONE -Feedback/Questions on CAMP Version 1.1 Working Draft 32 (Dated: 5 December 2013)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CAMP-169
>                 URL: https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-169
>             Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Possibe Work Products
>            Reporter: Martin Chapman 
>
> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/camp-comment/201402/msg00001.html
> Hi Adrian,
> Recently I got a chance to take a look at CAMP working draft 39 (dated February 3, 2014).
> I was specifically looking to see how the issue filed here
> https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-153
> has been resolved.
> Upon reading through the comments on the issue, I am not sure I agree to the
> justification given to keep two different service specification formats.
> If I understand the justification correctly, it is saying that
> the 'in-line' format of service specification is useful for the use case when multiple artifacts *don't*
> want to share services. In such situations, the required services can be specified
> 'in-line' with each artifact, whereas, if multiple artifacts need to share a service (same instance of it) then such a
> service specification should be defined in the services section.
> I still think that one could achieve both these use cases by having a single
> way of defining required services in a separate top-level services section.
> Having two different formats will lead to model interpreter complexity
> without providing significant gain.
> If, however, the TC wants to keep two different formats then one suggestion that I would like to make
> is to enforce the distinction through the specification.
> Currently the 'in-line' format is still exactly same as the 'out-of-line' format,
> the specification does not explicitly restrict/enforce when to use one over the other.
> One way to enforce this would be to remove the 'id' field from the 'in-line' definition of a service.
> That way, it won't even be possible to reference an in-line defined service from outside
> the defining artifact's scope. (to be concrete: remove 'id' from being a child of 'fulfillment' node
> on line 14 of page 31).
> In case this is not an option then another suggestion would be to at least explicitly call out
> in the specification the need for providing two different ways to specify services and to suggest when
> one format should be used over the other.
> Regards,
> Devdatta



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.1#6155)