[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tosca] Groups - TOSCA Imperative Workflows supporting custom workflow language uploaded
Thanks Tal, comments in red: From: Tal Liron [mailto:tliron@redhat.com]
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:46 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:
If this is the case, then TOSCA should publish reference implementation code. Right now the spec is riddled with ambiguity.
Any ambiguities in the spec should be corrected independent of whether they relate to TOSCA orchestration functionality or other parts of the spec. Having a reference
implementation would be great and would be help, but I donât think that should be a substitute for a proper language specification.
The problem is that the spec does not make workflows optional. If an orchestrator would like to advertise itself as TOSCA-compliant then it would be expected to have full support for TOSCA workflows. This would
be a heavy requirement, especially for orchestrator that do not natively have a workflow paradigm. In my view we would do better to reduce the entry requirements for TOSCA, not add to them. Let's put this is the most practical context: Are we expecting the community (or a software startup) to come up with a robust,
production-ready TOSCA workflow orchestrator? I would not bet on that horse. I think we are better off complimenting existing orchestration solutions by allowing them to do what they do best, on their own terms. Thatâs a reasonable suggestion that should be considered and discussed in the TC meetings. Letâs plan on putting this on the agenda for one of our future meetings.
This could lead to a ârealâ distinction between a full spec and a âsimple profileâ. Thanks, Chris |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]