[TOSCA-198] CSD02 - simplify "schema" specification - OASIS Technical Committees Issue Tracker

Details

Type: Improvement
Status: Closed
Priority: Minor
Resolution: Unresolved
Affects Version/s: CSD2
Fix Version/s: CSD2
Component/s: Profile-YAML
Labels:
None

Proposal:
Hide

When specifying the type for entries in lists or maps, one has 2 options:

1. Specify the name of an existing type
2. Define the schema for a new (anonymous) type in-line.

I propose that for the first option, we use a "shorthand" notation as follows:

tosca.properties.PortSpec:
properties:
target:
type: list
entry_schema: PortDef

For the second option (where a new anonymous type is defined in-line) I propose we use a simplified schema specification as follows:

tosca.properties.PortSpec:
properties:
target:
type: list
entry_schema:
derived_from: integer
constraints:

in_range: [ 1, 65535 ]

The only key names that should be supported for schema specifcations are "derived_from", "constraints", and "properties". Neither case requires a "type" keyword (if an existing type is specified we use the shorthand notation) and neither case requires a "name" keyword (since type names are assigned externally in the "datatype_definition")

By the way, if we decide to adopt this proposal then I would also propose to rename entry_schema to entry_type
Show
When specifying the type for entries in lists or maps, one has 2 options: 1. Specify the name of an existing type 2. Define the schema for a new (anonymous) type in-line. I propose that for the first option, we use a "shorthand" notation as follows: tosca.properties.PortSpec: properties: target: type: list entry_schema: PortDef For the second option (where a new anonymous type is defined in-line) I propose we use a simplified schema specification as follows: tosca.properties.PortSpec: properties: target: type: list entry_schema: derived_from: integer constraints: in_range: [ 1, 65535 ] The only key names that should be supported for schema specifcations are "derived_from", "constraints", and "properties". Neither case requires a "type" keyword (if an existing type is specified we use the shorthand notation) and neither case requires a "name" keyword (since type names are assigned externally in the "datatype_definition") By the way, if we decide to adopt this proposal then I would also propose to rename entry_schema to entry_type
Resolution:

Hide

This issue was primarily intended to highlight modeling concerns, which were substantially addressed in the TOSCA Simple Profile for YAML TC discussion on 5 Mar 2015. The TC agrees, as per the reporter's suggestion, that the isssue be closed (see motion in minutes) and that, if needed, updated JIRA issues specific to the latest version of the spec be created.

Show
This issue was primarily intended to highlight modeling concerns, which were substantially addressed in the TOSCA Simple Profile for YAML TC discussion on 5 Mar 2015. The TC agrees, as per the reporter's suggestion, that the isssue be closed (see motion in minutes) and that, if needed, updated JIRA issues specific to the latest version of the spec be created.

Description

Property definitions can include an "entry_schema" key that is used to declare the schema definition for entries of “container” types such as the TOSCA list or map. The schema specification is currently somewhat confusing, since it seems to allow for 3 different ways to specify "names" associated with the schema:

1. There is a "type" key in the specification that can refer to a named type (either a built-in type of a custom type created in the "datatype_definitions" section of a template).
2. There is a "name" key in the specification that allows an arbitrary name to be associated with the schema
3. The "datatypes_definitions" key of a template specifies a name for each newly created schema external to the schema specification itself.

I believe there is room for simplification.

CSD02 - simplify "schema" specification

Details

Description

Attachments

Activity

People

Dates