[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Tosca.meta block 0 clarification
|
Hi Shitao, our last replies bypassed each other. TOSCA v1.3 does not explicitly allow extending block_0 either. Greetings, GÃbor From: Lishitao <lishitao@huawei.com>
We have discussed this issue in ETSI and OASIS TOSCA long time ago, and if my memory is correct, we concluded that the extension in block O should be
fine. And we added a note in SOL004 (clause 4.1.2.2) saying that, NOTE: TOSCA Simple Profile YAML v1.1 [2] does not preclude the TOSCA.meta file block _0 to be extended with key value pairs. Because at that time TOSCA simple profile yaml v1.3 was not published, SOL004 can only reference tosca 1.1 or 1.2, and the advice got from OASIS TOSCA
was that tosca 1.1 does not preclude the extension in block 0. Regards shitao åää:
tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org]
äè
Marton, Gabor (Nokia - HU/Budapest) Thanks a lot, Calin, for the clarification. However, while trying to conclude about SOL 004, I found an interesting thing in TOSCA
v1.3---it slipped my attention till now: 6.2.1 Custom keynames in the
TOSCA.meta
file Besides using the normative keynames in
block_0 (i.e. TOSCA-Meta-File-Version, CSAR-Version, Created-By, Entry-Definitions, Other-Definitions) users can populate further blocks in the
TOSCA.meta file with custom key-value pairs that follow the entry syntax of the
TOSCA.meta file, but which are outside the scope of the TOSCA specifications. Nevertheless, future versions of the TOSCA specification may add definitions of new keynames to be used in the
TOSCA.meta file. In case of a keyname collision (with a custom keyname) the TOSCA specification definitions take precedence.
To minimize such keyname collisions the specification reserves the use of keynames starting with âTOSCAâ and âtoscaâ (the
strings within, but not including, the double quotation marks). It is recommended as a good practice to use a specific prefix (e.g. identifying the organization, scope, etc.) when using custom keynames.
So, if SOL 004 explicitly references TOSCA v1.3 and the above section (now it only refers to TOSCA v1.1), then it should be fine and safe. Do you agree with this conclusion? (Otherwise, if the above section did not exist, we would be in trouble with SOL 004, and the empty line would not resolve it either, because the base specification TOSCA
v1.0 says: âThe first line of a block (other than block_0) MUST be a name/value pair that has the
name âNameâ and the value of which is the path-name of the file described [â]â). Greetings, GÃbor From: Calin Curescu <calin.curescu@ericsson.com>
Hi Gabor, Denes, As it is now, the standard only allows custom key-value pairs in other blocks than block 0. In TOSCA v2.0 this is specification is kept. So yes you are right, SOL004 is not legal, you need an empty line before the non-standard keynames, signifying a new block. BR/Calin From:
"Marton, Gabor (Nokia - HU/Budapest)" <gabor.marton@nokia.com> Hi Calin, what is your standpoint in this question? In case it is not legal to use non-standard keynames in block 0, SOL 004 is not legal either. Greetings, GÃbor From:
tosca@lists.oasis-open.org <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Chris Lauwers Hi Denes, I assume this email was intended for Calin? Calin has contributed the TOSCA v2.0 text defining the updated CSAR format, so he is in the best position to respond. That
said, I believe it is not legal to use non-standard keynames in block 0. Calin, do you have a different understanding? Thanks, Chris From:
tosca@lists.oasis-open.org <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Nemeth, Denes (Nokia - HU/Budapest) Dear Colin After reading the Tosca 1.x and the Tosca 2.0 draft I am not able to deduct if it is allowed to populate the block 0 with additional keys or only the other blocks may be populated with
additional key-value pairs. The current draft states the following: The first block, called block_0, contains metadata about the CSAR itself and is further defined below. Other blocks may be used
to represent custom generic metadata or metadata pertaining to files in the CSAR. Besides using the normative keynames in block_0 (i.e. CSAR-Version, Created-By, Entry-Definitions, Other-Definitions) users can
populate further blocks in the TOSCA.meta file with custom key-value pairs that follow the entry syntax of the TOSCA.meta file, but which are outside the scope of the TOSCA specification. Would it be possible to add a clarification sentence into the specs to define if extension of the block 0 is allowed or not. Cheers Denes |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]