TOSCA policies (was: RE: [tosca] Re: Proposal: CSARs should be tarballs, not ZIPs)

[Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>]

I donât interpret the spec that way. I read it as follows:

 

1. Policies in TOSCA (currently) are declarative, meaning they are defined using âEvent/Condition/Actionâ elements.
2. The âeventâ portion of the Event/Condition/Action definition is defined by referencing the name of a notification. The âtargetsâ keyword is used to specify the set of nodes in the topology that can be expected to generate those notifications.

 

Once the policy is trigger, the âconditionâ must be evaluated (this is where we proposed significantly improved syntax last year), and if true the action is executed. The action can operate on the entire topology, not just on the node that generated the notification.

 

I agree that the policy syntax definition needs a bit of work, but I donât believe it is accurate to say that âpolicies are associated with nodesâ.

 

Thanks,

 

Chris

 

 

From: Tal Liron <tliron@redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 4:46 PM
To: Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>
Cc: Bruun, Peter Michael (CMS RnD Orchestration) <peter-michael.bruun@hpe.com>; adam souzis <adam@souzis.com>; tosca@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [tosca] Re: Proposal: CSARs should be tarballs, not ZIPs

 

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 2:37 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:

At some point, we need a serious set of discussions about policies. For example, Tal states below that âpolicies are associated with nodesâ.

 

Policies are *currently* associated with nodes (the "targets"). I agree that we need other ways to implement them.