[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tosca] Inheritance of the "type" keyname: standpoint for TOSCA v1.2/v1.3?
Thanks, Tal. Does this also mean that, up to TOSCA v1.3, the following sentence:
in practice, only refers to parameter declarations/definitions (where the type keyname is not mandatory) but not to property declarations/definitions? GÃbor From: Tal Liron <tliron@redhat.com>
Because up to TOSCA 1.3 the "type" keyword was listed as mandatory, I would assume that all implementations would
require you to explicitly specify it, even if it was the same as in the parent. Those that do not I would consider non-compliant. You are correct that it can be easily derived, which is what we want to fix in TOSCA 2.0. Generally we understand that the "mandatory" column (used to be confusingly called "required") is often not just "yes" or "no" but that in many cases
it is conditional on inheritance or association to other keywords. On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:56 AM Marton, Gabor (Nokia - HU/Budapest) <gabor.marton@nokia.com> wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]