Re: [tosca] Orchestration directives for requirements

Terminology, again.

Sure, it would be fulfilled by a node representation. But if we are dealing with the scope of our design then the source of those node representations is our node templates, nowhere else. This is fully reliable and fully deterministic. We can thus validate the design before creating node representations.

I am allowing for a reduction in that strict determinism, but I am asking that it be done explicitly, via a keyname. Again, please let's not sacrifice TOCSA's Day 0 strict validation power for Day 1 flexibility. It's possible to have both by letting the user make an explicit choice.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:47 PM Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> wrote:

I think youâre making an incorrect assumption that requirements are fulfilled using node templates (rather than node representations). You might be able to do this in special cases where you donât have node filters and there is no variability in the template, but that is a special case only (and not very useful in practive). In general, if you donât explicitly assign a target in a requirement assignment, then the only time you can reliable assign that node is at deployment time using node representations.

Â

We need to get agreement on this aspect of the operational model first before we can discuss any more grammar proposals.

tosca message