RE: [tosca] relative vs. absolute path names in import statements

[Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>]

That could work, but it doesnât really convey the idea that all referenced files must be contained within the repository. For example, if I say;

 

                file://localhost/etc/passwd

 

that would cause casual readers to believe that weâre looking for the /etc/passwd file on the local machine, rather than for an /etc/passwd file within the local CSAR or local repository. I think such an approach would be very confusing.

 

Chris

 

From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Tal Liron
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 3:36 PM
To: Chris Lauwers
Cc: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [tosca] relative vs. absolute path names in import statements

 

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:11 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:

I keep running into issues where different TOSCA service templates make different assumptions about path names in TOSCA âimportâ statements:

 

Why not just use the URL specification? It includes specifications for both relative and absolute locations. For an absolute filesystem path it could be "file://" or "http://", for example. Relative paths (without the schema) would be relative to the URL of the current document. This is how I handled it without too much difficulty in Puccini. This also avoid confusion with the Windows forward slash for path separation -- the URL spec uses backslashes.

 

This would also assist implementations, because practically every language has either built-in support for URLs or good libraries to handle them.

         Aside from âimportâ statements, how do we deal with other aspects of the TOSCA syntax that rely on path names, e.g. path names to specify an âartifactâ in a repo?

I agree entirely -- whatever spec we choose, it should be the same for all paths in TOSCA, including artifact locations.