Hi Tal,
- Yes, we could use the word âservice templateâ to refer to the set of files that are used for deploying a service, but that would be a change from how we currently use it. In the
current spec, the word âservice templateâ is used to refer to a single file only (and specifically to any file that contains TOSCA). I recommend we start using the word âTOSCA fileâ to refer to a file that contains TOSCA.
- I agree that the âtopology_templateâ keyword doesnât add any semantic value and that it increases indentation, but that doesnât bother me. I like the fact that it provides a nice
and convenient grouping around keywords that are allowed in TOSCA files that are used as Service Templates vs. TOSCA files that are just used to define types. My preference is to keep it.
- Yes, it would be more accurate to use âpolicy_templateâ, âgroup_templateâ, âworkflow_templateâ, etc. In fact, in my implementation I use those terms internally.
- Yes, we still need a better definition of âprofileâ. I see a âprofileâ as a named collection of domain-specific types. In addition, the profile can bundle âimplementationsâ for
those types together with the type definitions themselves. Those implementations could consist of âartifactsâ, or they could consist of substituting templates. If substituting template are used, then those templates will contain a âtopology_templateâ keyword
(which means that it is possible inside a âprofileâ package to have TOSCA files with âtopology_templateâ keywords).
Thanks,
Chris
From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Tal Liron
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 5:12 PM
To: Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>
Cc: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [tosca] terminology for naming TOSCA files and templates
That could work, but there are TOSCA files that are neither service templates nor profiles (e.g. the files that are imported by service template files).
Well, we still need to better define what a profile is. I understand it as any collection of files that doesn't have the template assignments. The profile can be one file or can import many others. I tend to divide my profiles into many
files.
Where such a collection becomes more than just "a bunch of types" and an actual real "profile" may be due to simply giving it that profile/namespace thing we discussed in the past.
Also, if we did away with the topology_template keyword, then it would be slightly harder to validate âuniquenessâ of the keys. For example, can I have a top-level template that
defines node_templates, and then import a separate TOSCA file that defines policies?
Only slightly harder. We could clearly list the specific keywords that are only allowed in service templates. (Again, this is what Cloudify has been doing for years.) To be honest, I kinda wish all of the keywords
had the "_template" suffix, like node_templates. So it would be policy_templates, group_templates, etc.
The big win is removing a keyword that does ... nothing at all (except make service templates have too much indentation).
|