RE: [tosca] operation implementations

Yes, we should definitely discuss this, but Iâm not sure what other options there are for defining operation implementations. Theyâre either defined using artifacts (our current approach), or they must be defined directly in the TOSCA language somehow. I believe that as a general rule, we should avoid adding implementation-specific constructs to the TOSCA language. Do you see alternative mechanisms?

Thanks,

Chris

From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Tal Liron
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 1:29 PM
To: Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>
Cc: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [tosca] operation implementations

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 3:10 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:

When defining operation implementations, TOSCA v1.3 makes a distinction between âprimaryâ and âdependentâ artifacts. Iâm not sure this distinction is useful. I propose that instead, we change operation implementations in v2.0 to take a list of artifacts, where each artifact in the list is processed sequentially.

This requires more discussion. I think we would want "implementation" to be more flexible then it is right now, so we can support REST calls and other custom operation types. The expectation that an operation's implementation would always be an artifact is limiting.

tosca message