Uploaded image for project: 'OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC'
  1. OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC
  2. TOSCA-20 Spec issues identified in creating Service Template in YAML for More Complicated PHP Use Case.
  3. TOSCA-21

TOSCA-20 Issue 6: "id" vs "name"

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Type: Sub-task
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: CSD03
    • Fix Version/s: CSD03
    • Component/s: Spec
    • Labels:
      None
    • Proposal:
      Hide

      My suggestion is to adopt solution (2) as

      • It is compatible with our consensus on (A) and (B)
      • (C) is easily done (and better) by the implementation
      • Using human-readable names carry more semantics, are easier to remember, are more user-friendly (E), ubiquitous (D), is quite likely to increase uptake (F) and is simpler than managing two identifiers, "id" and "name".
      Show
      My suggestion is to adopt solution (2) as It is compatible with our consensus on (A) and (B) (C) is easily done (and better) by the implementation Using human-readable names carry more semantics, are easier to remember, are more user-friendly (E), ubiquitous (D), is quite likely to increase uptake (F) and is simpler than managing two identifiers, "id" and "name".

      Description

      This issue actually has three possible solutions:

      1. Keep "id" and drop "name" (or make it optional); same for XML and YAML
      2. Keep "name" and drop "id" (or make it optional); same for XML and YAML
      3. Adopt solution (1) for XML and (2) for YAML; define translation between formats

      Aspects to consider are, among potential others:

      A. Uniqueness of identifiers
      B. Scope of uniqueness: local to the template or global
      C. Enforcement or validation of uniqueness
      D. Familiarity of construct
      E. Culture ("geeky" vs "user-friendly")
      F. Likelihood of acceptance
      G. Simplicity

      During our call on 2012-06-07, is seemed that

      i. There was consensus that (A) is required but (B) only at the local level; import of external identifiers can occur either namespaced or optimistically
      ii. There was consensus that (C) uniqueness must be enforced. However, there was disagreement on where it should be enforced. Derek suggested that implementations should make use of XML's enforcement of the uniqueness of the "id" attribute. I suggested that this could be trivially carried out by the implementation itself, quite possibly with better error messages. Some of the argument may have rested on (D) Familiarity of users with the XML "id" attribute.
      iii. There was a difference in (E) among the TC

        Attachments

          Activity

            People

            • Assignee:
              tkunze Tobias Kunze (Inactive)
              Reporter:
              tkunze Tobias Kunze (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated: