Groups - Action Item "SugarCRM Template: Agree on lifecycle operations on NodeType interfaces" Modified

[Matthew Rutkowski<mrutkows@us.ibm.com>]

Action Item Subject: SugarCRM Template: Agree on lifecycle operations on NodeType interfaces
Item Number: #0002

---

Description
For each agreed-upon (base or special) NodeType in the SugarCRM service template we need to agree on the lifecycle operations that are needed to support interop.

Owner: Unassigned
Status: Open
Priority: High
Due Date: N/A

---

Comments
Mr. Matthew Rutkowski 2012-10-01 21:17 UTC
e.g. NodeType name="ApacheWebServer":













Mr. Matthew Rutkowski 2012-10-15 13:40 UTC
Notes from 2012-10-08 SC meeting:
Ken: going back to discussion regarding inheritance, would it be appropriate/agree upon a simplified set of inheritable objects that support interfaces and others that do not. Does not wish to encourage TOSCA developers and architects to begin defining many operations that are not understood and prevent interop.
Derek: believes the interfaces are associated with certain types (based upon applicability to that type).
[08:44] Matt Rutkowski (IBM): Derek: could have lots of random operations, but with "custom" and special types could help people understand where to add "custom" mgmt. operations.
Have base types (for all), custom are defined by owner of nodetype by a part. person or entity (in an authoritative way) custom are non-authoritative but could be used for a particular deployment.
We need to have crisp defns. for these types.
Ken: concerned about impl. encountering operations they cannot support,
Derek: the intent is that the only required operations are those on the base types; others would be accessible in imperative mode, invokable from some plan
but we are trying to agree on the ones needed for interop and support the declarative approach.
we will have to ask ourselves what are the correct set for interop