RE: [tosca] To consider: change data type "properties" keyword to "fields"

[Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>]

-          I agree that this may not be the most intuitive naming convention, but I would argue against making this change. From a parsing and validation point-of-view, there is really no difference between âfieldsâ of a complex data type and âpropertiesâ of other entities (such as nodes, relationships, capabilities, artifacts, etc). In my opinion, renaming this would introduce the need for a lot of unnecessary special-purpose code.

-          Iâm not sure âa lot of the syntax is breaking in TOSCA 1.3â. As far as I know, the only incompatible change we made in 1.3. is in the policy syntax (if I recall correctly). Do you have specific examples?

 

Thanks,

 

Chris

 

From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Tal Liron
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 11:08 AM
To: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [tosca] To consider: change data type "properties" keyword to "fields"

 

This is something that has always bothered me -- the "properties" in a data type are not actually properties, not in the sense that node template properties are properties. The data type can be used for properties, attributes, inputs, etc. They really serve a purpose more like "fields" in a programming language struct.

 

It would obviously be a breaking change, but then a lot of the syntax is breaking in TOSCA 1.3. In my view this change would increase clarity.