By the way, as I think about this more, it seems to me that there is no reason why node filters should use condition clauses (rather than constraint clauses). For example, if I wanted a node filter that says:
âI want a Ubuntu host with 8G of memory or a CentOS host with 4G of memoryâ. I donât think I can express that using just constraint clauses (even when we add Boolean operators to constraints) since we need constraints that combine multiple properties. Using
condition clauses in node filters would solve this problem.
From: Katzman, Anatoly <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 6:20 AM
To: Calin Curescu <email@example.com>; Chris Lauwers <firstname.lastname@example.org>; NOSHPITZ, CLAUDE <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org; Arturo Martin De Nicolas <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Paul.Lipton@ca.com; email@example.com; Steve Baillargeon <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com; dmytro.gassanov@NetCracker.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; SHADMI, DAVID <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
JDurand@us.fujitsu.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: Enhancements to the TOSCA data filtering abilities
Thank you for the feedback, really encouraging.
Regarding the new self-reflecting attributes â I think it is a good addition and that it deserves a separate proposal and a separate discussion thread
On the sub-property targeting syntax, âmapâ vs âlistâ:
The map option crossed my mind when I was working on the proposal, but I have intentionally chosen the list, and this is why:
The list syntax is consistent with what we already have in functions get_input (4.4.1), get_property (4.4.2) and get_attribute (4.5.1)
The list syntax is much more extendable and more suits my future proposals that I have not yet disclosed. A spoiler: a list item could be extended from what we have now (just a sub-property name or index) to a more advanced selection
_expression_ with terms like ANY, ALL, MATCH(pattern), etc.
I was also going to propose changes in the data type definition syntax to allow laconic refinement of deeply buried sub-properties:
- equal: static
Well, we have a lot to discuss.
Looking forward to our future meetings,
support your proposed changes.
I have a suggestion for the format of proposal #3 syntax. Instead of:
[virtual_cpu, virtual_cpu_pinning, cpu_pinning_policy]:
- equal: static
I would propose:
- equal: static
That would be the same hierarchy, but when (and only when) descending through datatypes we would have the option to omit the âproperties:â keyname in the hierarchy to make the structure more readable.
NOTE also that the same hierarchy as above could be used in the refinement proposal of Chris, when we want
to refine a property deeply buried in another set of complex properties.
I would also propose
to extend the self-reflecting attributes of TOSCA node and relationship template to contain:
- for both nodes and relationships
- to be able to filter out (in a workflow step) this node if it is of a specific type
- for relationships
- to be able to filter out (in a workflow step) this relationship if it has been created to fulfill a requirement with a specific symbolic name (which is almost always the case)
- for relationships
- only pending to the outcome of discussions if a requirement occurrences should be assigned a specific index
From: Chris Lauwers <email@example.com>
Date: Monday, 3 September 2018 at 06:26
To: "KATZMAN, ANATOLY" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "NOSHPITZ, CLAUDE" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>,
Arturo Martin De Nicolas <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Calin Curescu <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org"
<email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>,
"Paul.Lipton@ca.com" <Paul.Lipton@ca.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>,
Steve Baillargeon <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "dmytro.gassanov@NetCracker.com"
<email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org"
<email@example.com>, "SHADMI, DAVID" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>, "JDurand@us.fujitsu.com" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>, "email@example.com"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com"
Cc: Chris Lauwers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Agenda for this week's TOSCA Simple Profile meeting
We obviously need to discuss the specifics in detail, but in general I fully support these types of enhancements as proposed by Anatoly.
In addition to these topics, I would also like to submit for discussion on the WG forum a set of enhancements to the existing TOSCA syntax for conditions and constraints. The attached
document contains the details. The document is probably far from perfect, but I believe that even in its current form it makes a good basis for the further discussion.
Of course, it is up to the forum to decide on the priority of this new topic in our backlog.
TOSCA Simple Profile for YAML
Discussion topics for 2018-08-28:
- Thinhâs request to backport get-inputs enhancements from 1.3 to 1.2 for IFA/SOL alignment, or freeze the 1.3 definition for early adoption by ETSI workstreams
- Finalize derived-type property semantics (from last week): this should be ok as discussed, letâs check.
- Requirements and capabilities types: aligning ETSI-IFA requirements/assumptions with Simple Profile
If time allows, otherwise for future meetings:
- Policy: events, triggers, and actions
- OS Container use case/structure (would this lead to an âevolvingâ normative type for 1.3?)