Chris Lauwers comments

Results 89 comments of


                                            Chris Lauwers

"about" keyname

A couple of comments: - A TOSCA file already supports a 'description' keyword at the top level. Would the 'description' keywords in the about section replace the top-level keyword? -...

Remove the NFV profile and its example

I agree. Unless there are any objections, we will do this over the next couple of days.

Should a relationship definition be allowed to refer to properties of a target node type before the type of the node has been declared/resolved? If not then the Node clause should be documented as required in that case.

Philippe is correct. The “extract” you provided does not illustrate the problem you have highlighted. In the comments, you state: # TODO Don't really want to declare a node type...

Should a relationship definition be allowed to refer to properties of a target node type before the type of the node has been declared/resolved? If not then the Node clause should be documented as required in that case.

I don't believe the ``get_attribute: [ SELF, TMF620_requirement, api_provider_sap ]`` expression is valid, although Section 5.5.1.2 of TOSCA 2.0 csd03 is not very helpful here. Based on the language in...

Should a relationship definition be allowed to refer to properties of a target node type before the type of the node has been declared/resolved? If not then the Node clause should be documented as required in that case.

My interpretation of that example is different: the ``database_endpoint`` requirement is fulfilled by a node of type ``tosca.nodes.Database``, which has a property named ``port``. It is that node property that...

Should a relationship definition be allowed to refer to properties of a target node type before the type of the node has been declared/resolved? If not then the Node clause should be documented as required in that case.

Yes, we need to resolve the ambiguity, but more importantly we need to extend the syntax to support all three use cases: 1. Retrieve property values from the target capability...

Should a relationship definition be allowed to refer to properties of a target node type before the type of the node has been declared/resolved? If not then the Node clause should be documented as required in that case.

Calin has made a similar proposal in the past for extending the "TOSCA Path" syntax. You can find it at the end of the following document: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=66199&wg_abbrev=tosca

Should a relationship definition be allowed to refer to properties of a target node type before the type of the node has been declared/resolved? If not then the Node clause should be documented as required in that case.

By the way, Philippe is correct that example 13 in Section 2.9.3 of TOSCA 1.3 suggests that the property value is intended to be retrieved from the target capability, not...

Should a relationship definition be allowed to refer to properties of a target node type before the type of the node has been declared/resolved? If not then the Node clause should be documented as required in that case.

We should also revisit the SOURCE and TARGET keywords in the context of relationships. These keywords clearly refer to the source and target nodes for the relationship, but there is...

Should a relationship definition be allowed to refer to properties of a target node type before the type of the node has been declared/resolved? If not then the Node clause should be documented as required in that case.

My YAML parser doesn't like the '*' character we (sort of) agreed on to specify that we expect a list of all values (as opposed to just one single value)....