[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [tosca] key_schema in TOSCA 1.3?
Hi,
Â
I think this is a well-known usage of how to do pair definition in a list, so we donât need to have it in the spec.
Â
BR,
/C
Â
From: <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Tal Liron <tliron@redhat.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 19:33
To: Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>
Cc: Calin Curescu <calin.curescu@ericsson.com>, "tosca@lists.oasis-open.org" <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [tosca] key_schema in TOSCA 1.3?Â
Thanks everybody for the discussion and quick decision!
Â
As an addendum, I'll just point out there is a workaround for cases where you need to send a map with arbitrary keys to an external system. Just use a list of entries:
Â
data_types:
 MyEntry:
ÂÂÂ Key: MyKeyType
ÂÂÂ Value: MyValueType
Â
node_types:
 MyNode:
ÂÂÂ properties:
ÂÂÂÂÂ my_fake_map:
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ type: list
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ entry_schema: MyEntry
Â
The one caveat is that TOSCA would not be able to verify the uniqueness of keys, but at least there is a functional solution.
Â
Is it worth pointing this out in the spec to preempt questions about the key_schema limitation?
Â
Â
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:15 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:
As a compromise, perhaps we can restrict key_schema to only allow scalar types (or types that derive from scalar types).
Â
Chris
Â
From: Tal Liron [mailto:tliron@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 10:09 AM
To: Calin Curescu <calin.curescu@ericsson.com>
Cc: Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>; tosca@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [tosca] key_schema in TOSCA 1.3?Â
I would like to ask the group to reconsider the new "key_schema" feature.
Â
While it's true that complex keys are supported in YAML, hashtables with complex keys are not widely supported across programming languages, data formats (JSON), databases (relational, graph), memory caches, etc.
Â
In working to implement this feature in Puccini I am hitting many problems that would require adding workarounds with considerable complexity, in particular in its interfaces with the orchestration systems it supports.
Â
My guess is that it was added to provide some grammatical completeness, but I would like to re-discuss its practicality and necessity. Can we add this to the meeting agenda?
Â
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]