Re: [tosca] Proposal for get_property based on discussion in WG on 2019_09_17

[Tal Liron <tliron@redhat.com>]

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 11:09 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:

-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ I donât believe we can do away with SELF unless we also do away with the ability to specify an arbitrary node in the (containing) topology, as in:

Good point, but then what about getting properties from groups, policies, etc.? get_property always seemed like a poorly designed function to me. For consistency there should be a way to change your starting point to anything.

-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ When discussing your proposal to return sets of values for intrinsic functions, we should start with a discussion about what these functions are intended to be used for.

In a way get_attribute is more interesting, because it involves "live" data.

Â

-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ There are other âintrinsicâ functions in the current spec for which I donât understand the intended us. Specifically, what would we use âget_nodes_of_typeâ for?

What about get_operation_output? And get_artifact? I find a lot of these problematic.