[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tosca-comment] RE: Artifacts for Node Interfaces
I agree that Interfaces are currently not very well defined in TOSCA. However, that doesnât mean we should get rid of them, it means we should flesh them out more. The reason operations are grouped in interfaces is because operations associated
with an interfaces can typically only be called in a specific order or, more technically correct, when the interface is in a given state. Unfortunately, there is no way currently to specify this in the interface type definition.
I have proposed the following solution to this in the past:
In my opinion, this is a far better approach than what our current specification says, which is that node types should have a state attribute (defined in tosca.nodes.Root) which can only have a limited set of predefined values (also defined
in the standard). This approach has the following problems:
The approach Iâm suggesting would also create a path towards automatic generation of declarative workflows for arbitrary interfaces: the workflow could define the target states (the âdesired stateâ) for all nodes in the topology, and then
create âstepsâ to get there based on the state transitions specified in the operation definitions (this gives us a general-purpose path towards intent-based deployments). Thanks, Chris From: Tal Liron <tliron@redhat.com> One suggested solution -- We should have Operation Types, and remove the concept of Interfaces entirely. I have yet to see a use of Interfaces in TOSCA that is in any way similar to how the concept works in other languages. You would still need to declare Operations
in node types and relationship types. And that set declarations is itself the "interface". We could then dive into Operation Types and allow artifacts to be attached and see how we can better support RPC, REST, and other patterns. Just having an "implementation" string (plus "dependencies") is insufficient, and it's awkward to attach the relevant artifact at the node rather than at the operation. On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:05 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]