RE: [tosca] Operation implementations

That makes sense. Do you think itâs worth distinguishing somehow (in the language) between those types of artifacts that can be âimplementationsâ vs. other artifacts that canât? The Simple Profile made a distinction between implementation artifacts and deployment artifacts. I wonder if we need this in the language (as opposed to in the type system/profile)

Thanks,

Chris

From: Tal Liron <tliron@redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:47 AM
To: Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>
Cc: adam souzis <adam@souzis.com>; tosca@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [tosca] Operation implementations

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:32 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:

Hi Tal, would you mind clarifying the two roles that artifact types take on? Based on my understanding, the artifact type is only there to inform the orchestrator which code needs to be executed to âcallâ the artifact (or, using Adamâs terminology, which Configurator to use). Do you see another role for artifact types?

I see many roles for artifacts that have nothing to with operations:

1. Virtual machine images attached to nodes

2. Policy definitions for specialized agents

3. Schemas for special data type validation (e.g. YANG)

...

tosca message