OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tosca-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: TOSCA examples from spec



From: Tal Liron <tliron@redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>
Cc: Philippe Merle <philippe.merle@univ-lille.fr>; tosca-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: TOSCA examples from spec


On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 12:04 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:

For example. I donât believe there should be any difference between the two following âemptyâ service templates:


tosca_definitions_version: tosca_simple_yaml_1_3





tosca_definitions_version: tosca_simple_yaml_1_3

topology_template: {}


I think both should be valid. As a general rule, we should make the TOSCA syntax as permissive as possible without sacrificing correctness.


Well ... I have a slight disagreement here. The problem is that the first example will indeed be parsed as a null value. This is a quirk of YAML that I'm frankly not a fan of, and frankly I wish it would be a syntax error. For TOSCA, I'm in favor of making it explicitly an empty map. This allows designers at a glance to know what is missing or empty. So, it would be parsable in YAML, but the TOSCA parser would say "sorry, there is a null value here, but it must be a map" (this is what Puccini does; I always go for strictness).


I understand your âstrictnessâ argument from a technical perspective, but Iâm curious what benefit would be provided to TOSCA authors by enforcing this strictness. Is there any ambiguity that would be eliminated or errors that would be prevented?





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]