[OASIS Issue Tracker] (TOSCA-136) CSD04 - Need rules to assure non-collision (uniqueness) of requirement or capability names

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

     [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TOSCA-136?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Matthew Rutkowski  updated TOSCA-136:
-------------------------------------

    Fix Version/s:     (was: CSD04)

> CSD04 - Need rules to assure non-collision (uniqueness) of requirement or capability names
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TOSCA-136
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TOSCA-136
>             Project: OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Profile-YAML
>    Affects Versions: CSD1
>            Reporter: Matthew Rutkowski 
>            Assignee: Sahdev Zala 
>
> When defining node types/templates we allow authors to defined named requirements (or capabilities). How do we prevent (name) collision if we allow others to augment a type or template definition with their own requirements  or capabilities?
> For example,with the following node template:
> node_templates:
>   mysql:
>     type: tosca.nodes.MySQL
>     properties:
>       mysql_root_password: { get_input: my_mysql_rootpw }
>       mysql_port: { get_input: my_mysql_port }
>     requirements:
>       - host: db_server
> What happens of a second named requirement of "host" is added? 
> What happens if a new Node Type that derives from MySQL is created and attempts to use the requirement name "host" which is already defined on the MySQL type?
> ----
> Need prose and/or examples to discuss if these are errors or are side effects created (such as "choice" of "host".  
> ----
> In relation to this last thought, another bug will be opened in JIRA to ask this question. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)