Re: [tosca] operation implementations

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:59 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:

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?

I proposed a rough "operation type" grammar a while ago (2 years ago?). I still think it's the right approach and hope we can revisit it. We need a better grammar for creating an interface/membrane with orchestrators. I also think notifications need to be more powerful and allow for proper event definitions ("policy triggers" are far too narrowly defined).

Support for artifacts can be handled, I think, with the get_artifact function where appropriate. Note that this function is very poorly defined, still...

tosca message