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

[Tal Liron <tliron@redhat.com>]

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:57 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:

-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 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.

From a usability point of view I think it's confusing. The word "properties" has a very specific meaning in TOSCA.

-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 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?

Breaking changes that immediately come to mind: 1) Interfaces: new "operations" keyword. 2) Groups: no interfaces.