You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ariatosca.apache.org by Steve Baillargeon <st...@ericsson.com> on 2017/11/16 19:42:26 UTC
Attribute and Property Reflection
Hi
Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in 3.5.10.1?
Regards
Steve B
Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co>.
Yes, we're on the same page, I just used the opportunity to clarify how
ARIA implements this variance.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:30 PM, DeWayne Filppi <de...@cloudify.co> wrote:
> I meant attribute values differ. Property values don't differ between
> instances. When I mean allow functions to be values, I mean the return
> value only from the TOSCA perspective.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co> wrote:
>
> > Well, you can argue that attributes *vary* per node instance, while
> > properties *do not vary* per node instance.
> >
> > Our discussion about function values is important: if a property value
> is a
> > function, the actual evaluated value might indeed be different per node
> > instance.
> >
> > ARIA actually does keep copies of everything (both properties and
> > attributes) for every node instance in the models. We made this blanket
> > decision to allow for full flexibility in implementing plugins and
> > supporting future versions of TOSCA. While in TOSCA properties are
> strictly
> > read-only at the parser level, it may be possible for plugins to change
> > property values. Imagine, for example, a plugin that takes existing
> Compute
> > nodes and upgrades them: many of their properties may change.
> >
> > It's fine and good for TOSCA to be strict, but we wanted ARIA to
> underneath
> > be as flexible as needed.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:12 PM, DeWayne Filppi <de...@cloudify.co>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Properties and attributes have no relationship. I always assumed the
> > > reflection was a convenience. Attributes are per instance, not per
> node.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The reason I think this is a bad feature is that TOSCA makes such a
> > clear
> > > > effort to separate properties from attributes, but then this
> reflection
> > > > features means that basically it's enough to only have properties...
> > > >
> > > > My proposal for TOSCA 2.0 would be to have *just* properties and to
> > allow
> > > > some properties to have "mutable: true" if you want then to behave
> like
> > > an
> > > > attribute.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Tal
> > > > > I found the magic statement in 3.5.8.1.1
> > > > > Yes the reflected attribute name must be the same as the property
> > name
> > > > for
> > > > > the reflection feature.
> > > > > Now I understand your second point. Thanks for your patience.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you think it is a bad feature?
> > > > > Property is the desired value while reflected attribute is the
> actual
> > > > > value.
> > > > > It seems logical to show actual value.
> > > > > Or are you saying the actual value will always be the same as the
> > > desired
> > > > > value and the reflected attribute is useless?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Steve
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:49 PM
> > > > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > > > >
> > > > > The reflection feature is mentioned very, very briefly in just that
> > one
> > > > > sentence in the spec. They is no mention of changing names, so I am
> > > > > expecting that the attribute names would be identical to the
> property
> > > > > names. In that case, there would be a conflict if an attribute has
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > name as a property -- otherwise how would the property be
> reflected?
> > > > That's
> > > > > why I'm assuming that for this to work we should not allow an
> > attribute
> > > > > name to override a property name.
> > > > >
> > > > > My preferred solution is not to add any custom prefixes in ARIA,
> > > because
> > > > > they would not be portable
> > > > >
> > > > > The TOSCA spec has many authors, and it would be hard to track down
> > the
> > > > > particular one who wrote this sentence... Personally, I think this
> is
> > > an
> > > > > awful and unclear feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Back 1 step please.
> > > > > > Are you saying that attribute names and property names within a
> > Type
> > > > > > MUST be different?
> > > > > > As far as I know they can be the same e.g. <attribute_name_1> =
> > > > > > <property_name 1>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > attributes:
> > > > > > <attribute_name_1>:
> > > > > > type:string
> > > > > > properties:
> > > > > > <property_name 1>:
> > > > > > type:string
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Back to reflection.
> > > > > > I am proposing <attribute_name> = actual_<property_name> But I
> > think
> > > > > > it is best if I ask further clarification from YAML Profile
> > authors.
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > What is your preferred solution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:15 PM
> > > > > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say
> > > > > > anything about naming conventions here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to
> emit
> > an
> > > > > > error if an attribute name is the same as a property name,
> because
> > > > > > obviously this would break this feature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see the following text in the JIRA:
> > > > > > > According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be
> > > 'exposed',
> > > > > > > with the same name, as attributes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know
> > it
> > > > > > > does not.
> > > > > > > What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention
> > > like
> > > > > > > “actual_<property_name>”?
> > > > > > > Can I add this to the JIRA?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Steve B
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > > > > > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined
> > in
> > > > > > > 3.5.10.1?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > Steve B
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by DeWayne Filppi <de...@cloudify.co>.
I meant attribute values differ. Property values don't differ between
instances. When I mean allow functions to be values, I mean the return
value only from the TOSCA perspective.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co> wrote:
> Well, you can argue that attributes *vary* per node instance, while
> properties *do not vary* per node instance.
>
> Our discussion about function values is important: if a property value is a
> function, the actual evaluated value might indeed be different per node
> instance.
>
> ARIA actually does keep copies of everything (both properties and
> attributes) for every node instance in the models. We made this blanket
> decision to allow for full flexibility in implementing plugins and
> supporting future versions of TOSCA. While in TOSCA properties are strictly
> read-only at the parser level, it may be possible for plugins to change
> property values. Imagine, for example, a plugin that takes existing Compute
> nodes and upgrades them: many of their properties may change.
>
> It's fine and good for TOSCA to be strict, but we wanted ARIA to underneath
> be as flexible as needed.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:12 PM, DeWayne Filppi <de...@cloudify.co>
> wrote:
>
> > Properties and attributes have no relationship. I always assumed the
> > reflection was a convenience. Attributes are per instance, not per node.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co> wrote:
> >
> > > The reason I think this is a bad feature is that TOSCA makes such a
> clear
> > > effort to separate properties from attributes, but then this reflection
> > > features means that basically it's enough to only have properties...
> > >
> > > My proposal for TOSCA 2.0 would be to have *just* properties and to
> allow
> > > some properties to have "mutable: true" if you want then to behave like
> > an
> > > attribute.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Tal
> > > > I found the magic statement in 3.5.8.1.1
> > > > Yes the reflected attribute name must be the same as the property
> name
> > > for
> > > > the reflection feature.
> > > > Now I understand your second point. Thanks for your patience.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you think it is a bad feature?
> > > > Property is the desired value while reflected attribute is the actual
> > > > value.
> > > > It seems logical to show actual value.
> > > > Or are you saying the actual value will always be the same as the
> > desired
> > > > value and the reflected attribute is useless?
> > > >
> > > > -Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:49 PM
> > > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > > >
> > > > The reflection feature is mentioned very, very briefly in just that
> one
> > > > sentence in the spec. They is no mention of changing names, so I am
> > > > expecting that the attribute names would be identical to the property
> > > > names. In that case, there would be a conflict if an attribute has
> the
> > > same
> > > > name as a property -- otherwise how would the property be reflected?
> > > That's
> > > > why I'm assuming that for this to work we should not allow an
> attribute
> > > > name to override a property name.
> > > >
> > > > My preferred solution is not to add any custom prefixes in ARIA,
> > because
> > > > they would not be portable
> > > >
> > > > The TOSCA spec has many authors, and it would be hard to track down
> the
> > > > particular one who wrote this sentence... Personally, I think this is
> > an
> > > > awful and unclear feature.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Back 1 step please.
> > > > > Are you saying that attribute names and property names within a
> Type
> > > > > MUST be different?
> > > > > As far as I know they can be the same e.g. <attribute_name_1> =
> > > > > <property_name 1>
> > > > >
> > > > > attributes:
> > > > > <attribute_name_1>:
> > > > > type:string
> > > > > properties:
> > > > > <property_name 1>:
> > > > > type:string
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Back to reflection.
> > > > > I am proposing <attribute_name> = actual_<property_name> But I
> think
> > > > > it is best if I ask further clarification from YAML Profile
> authors.
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > What is your preferred solution?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Steve
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:15 PM
> > > > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say
> > > > > anything about naming conventions here.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to emit
> an
> > > > > error if an attribute name is the same as a property name, because
> > > > > obviously this would break this feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I see the following text in the JIRA:
> > > > > > According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be
> > 'exposed',
> > > > > > with the same name, as attributes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know
> it
> > > > > > does not.
> > > > > > What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention
> > like
> > > > > > “actual_<property_name>”?
> > > > > > Can I add this to the JIRA?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Steve B
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > > > > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined
> in
> > > > > > 3.5.10.1?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Steve B
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co>.
Well, you can argue that attributes *vary* per node instance, while
properties *do not vary* per node instance.
Our discussion about function values is important: if a property value is a
function, the actual evaluated value might indeed be different per node
instance.
ARIA actually does keep copies of everything (both properties and
attributes) for every node instance in the models. We made this blanket
decision to allow for full flexibility in implementing plugins and
supporting future versions of TOSCA. While in TOSCA properties are strictly
read-only at the parser level, it may be possible for plugins to change
property values. Imagine, for example, a plugin that takes existing Compute
nodes and upgrades them: many of their properties may change.
It's fine and good for TOSCA to be strict, but we wanted ARIA to underneath
be as flexible as needed.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:12 PM, DeWayne Filppi <de...@cloudify.co> wrote:
> Properties and attributes have no relationship. I always assumed the
> reflection was a convenience. Attributes are per instance, not per node.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co> wrote:
>
> > The reason I think this is a bad feature is that TOSCA makes such a clear
> > effort to separate properties from attributes, but then this reflection
> > features means that basically it's enough to only have properties...
> >
> > My proposal for TOSCA 2.0 would be to have *just* properties and to allow
> > some properties to have "mutable: true" if you want then to behave like
> an
> > attribute.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Tal
> > > I found the magic statement in 3.5.8.1.1
> > > Yes the reflected attribute name must be the same as the property name
> > for
> > > the reflection feature.
> > > Now I understand your second point. Thanks for your patience.
> > >
> > > Why do you think it is a bad feature?
> > > Property is the desired value while reflected attribute is the actual
> > > value.
> > > It seems logical to show actual value.
> > > Or are you saying the actual value will always be the same as the
> desired
> > > value and the reflected attribute is useless?
> > >
> > > -Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:49 PM
> > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > >
> > > The reflection feature is mentioned very, very briefly in just that one
> > > sentence in the spec. They is no mention of changing names, so I am
> > > expecting that the attribute names would be identical to the property
> > > names. In that case, there would be a conflict if an attribute has the
> > same
> > > name as a property -- otherwise how would the property be reflected?
> > That's
> > > why I'm assuming that for this to work we should not allow an attribute
> > > name to override a property name.
> > >
> > > My preferred solution is not to add any custom prefixes in ARIA,
> because
> > > they would not be portable
> > >
> > > The TOSCA spec has many authors, and it would be hard to track down the
> > > particular one who wrote this sentence... Personally, I think this is
> an
> > > awful and unclear feature.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Back 1 step please.
> > > > Are you saying that attribute names and property names within a Type
> > > > MUST be different?
> > > > As far as I know they can be the same e.g. <attribute_name_1> =
> > > > <property_name 1>
> > > >
> > > > attributes:
> > > > <attribute_name_1>:
> > > > type:string
> > > > properties:
> > > > <property_name 1>:
> > > > type:string
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Back to reflection.
> > > > I am proposing <attribute_name> = actual_<property_name> But I think
> > > > it is best if I ask further clarification from YAML Profile authors.
> > > > What do you think?
> > > > What is your preferred solution?
> > > >
> > > > -Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:15 PM
> > > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > > >
> > > > Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say
> > > > anything about naming conventions here.
> > > >
> > > > I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to emit an
> > > > error if an attribute name is the same as a property name, because
> > > > obviously this would break this feature.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I see the following text in the JIRA:
> > > > > According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be
> 'exposed',
> > > > > with the same name, as attributes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know it
> > > > > does not.
> > > > > What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention
> like
> > > > > “actual_<property_name>”?
> > > > > Can I add this to the JIRA?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Steve B
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > > > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > > > >
> > > > > Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in
> > > > > 3.5.10.1?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Steve B
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by DeWayne Filppi <de...@cloudify.co>.
Properties and attributes have no relationship. I always assumed the
reflection was a convenience. Attributes are per instance, not per node.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co> wrote:
> The reason I think this is a bad feature is that TOSCA makes such a clear
> effort to separate properties from attributes, but then this reflection
> features means that basically it's enough to only have properties...
>
> My proposal for TOSCA 2.0 would be to have *just* properties and to allow
> some properties to have "mutable: true" if you want then to behave like an
> attribute.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tal
> > I found the magic statement in 3.5.8.1.1
> > Yes the reflected attribute name must be the same as the property name
> for
> > the reflection feature.
> > Now I understand your second point. Thanks for your patience.
> >
> > Why do you think it is a bad feature?
> > Property is the desired value while reflected attribute is the actual
> > value.
> > It seems logical to show actual value.
> > Or are you saying the actual value will always be the same as the desired
> > value and the reflected attribute is useless?
> >
> > -Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:49 PM
> > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> >
> > The reflection feature is mentioned very, very briefly in just that one
> > sentence in the spec. They is no mention of changing names, so I am
> > expecting that the attribute names would be identical to the property
> > names. In that case, there would be a conflict if an attribute has the
> same
> > name as a property -- otherwise how would the property be reflected?
> That's
> > why I'm assuming that for this to work we should not allow an attribute
> > name to override a property name.
> >
> > My preferred solution is not to add any custom prefixes in ARIA, because
> > they would not be portable
> >
> > The TOSCA spec has many authors, and it would be hard to track down the
> > particular one who wrote this sentence... Personally, I think this is an
> > awful and unclear feature.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Back 1 step please.
> > > Are you saying that attribute names and property names within a Type
> > > MUST be different?
> > > As far as I know they can be the same e.g. <attribute_name_1> =
> > > <property_name 1>
> > >
> > > attributes:
> > > <attribute_name_1>:
> > > type:string
> > > properties:
> > > <property_name 1>:
> > > type:string
> > >
> > >
> > > Back to reflection.
> > > I am proposing <attribute_name> = actual_<property_name> But I think
> > > it is best if I ask further clarification from YAML Profile authors.
> > > What do you think?
> > > What is your preferred solution?
> > >
> > > -Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:15 PM
> > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > >
> > > Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say
> > > anything about naming conventions here.
> > >
> > > I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to emit an
> > > error if an attribute name is the same as a property name, because
> > > obviously this would break this feature.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see the following text in the JIRA:
> > > > According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be 'exposed',
> > > > with the same name, as attributes.
> > > >
> > > > Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know it
> > > > does not.
> > > > What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention like
> > > > “actual_<property_name>”?
> > > > Can I add this to the JIRA?
> > > >
> > > > -Steve B
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > > >
> > > > Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in
> > > > 3.5.10.1?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Steve B
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co>.
The reason I think this is a bad feature is that TOSCA makes such a clear
effort to separate properties from attributes, but then this reflection
features means that basically it's enough to only have properties...
My proposal for TOSCA 2.0 would be to have *just* properties and to allow
some properties to have "mutable: true" if you want then to behave like an
attribute.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi Tal
> I found the magic statement in 3.5.8.1.1
> Yes the reflected attribute name must be the same as the property name for
> the reflection feature.
> Now I understand your second point. Thanks for your patience.
>
> Why do you think it is a bad feature?
> Property is the desired value while reflected attribute is the actual
> value.
> It seems logical to show actual value.
> Or are you saying the actual value will always be the same as the desired
> value and the reflected attribute is useless?
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:49 PM
> To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
>
> The reflection feature is mentioned very, very briefly in just that one
> sentence in the spec. They is no mention of changing names, so I am
> expecting that the attribute names would be identical to the property
> names. In that case, there would be a conflict if an attribute has the same
> name as a property -- otherwise how would the property be reflected? That's
> why I'm assuming that for this to work we should not allow an attribute
> name to override a property name.
>
> My preferred solution is not to add any custom prefixes in ARIA, because
> they would not be portable
>
> The TOSCA spec has many authors, and it would be hard to track down the
> particular one who wrote this sentence... Personally, I think this is an
> awful and unclear feature.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > Back 1 step please.
> > Are you saying that attribute names and property names within a Type
> > MUST be different?
> > As far as I know they can be the same e.g. <attribute_name_1> =
> > <property_name 1>
> >
> > attributes:
> > <attribute_name_1>:
> > type:string
> > properties:
> > <property_name 1>:
> > type:string
> >
> >
> > Back to reflection.
> > I am proposing <attribute_name> = actual_<property_name> But I think
> > it is best if I ask further clarification from YAML Profile authors.
> > What do you think?
> > What is your preferred solution?
> >
> > -Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:15 PM
> > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> >
> > Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say
> > anything about naming conventions here.
> >
> > I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to emit an
> > error if an attribute name is the same as a property name, because
> > obviously this would break this feature.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I see the following text in the JIRA:
> > > According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be 'exposed',
> > > with the same name, as attributes.
> > >
> > > Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know it
> > > does not.
> > > What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention like
> > > “actual_<property_name>”?
> > > Can I add this to the JIRA?
> > >
> > > -Steve B
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > >
> > > Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in
> > > 3.5.10.1?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Steve B
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
RE: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by Steve Baillargeon <st...@ericsson.com>.
Hi Tal
I found the magic statement in 3.5.8.1.1
Yes the reflected attribute name must be the same as the property name for the reflection feature.
Now I understand your second point. Thanks for your patience.
Why do you think it is a bad feature?
Property is the desired value while reflected attribute is the actual value.
It seems logical to show actual value.
Or are you saying the actual value will always be the same as the desired value and the reflected attribute is useless?
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:49 PM
To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
The reflection feature is mentioned very, very briefly in just that one sentence in the spec. They is no mention of changing names, so I am expecting that the attribute names would be identical to the property names. In that case, there would be a conflict if an attribute has the same name as a property -- otherwise how would the property be reflected? That's why I'm assuming that for this to work we should not allow an attribute name to override a property name.
My preferred solution is not to add any custom prefixes in ARIA, because they would not be portable
The TOSCA spec has many authors, and it would be hard to track down the particular one who wrote this sentence... Personally, I think this is an awful and unclear feature.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Steve Baillargeon < steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Back 1 step please.
> Are you saying that attribute names and property names within a Type
> MUST be different?
> As far as I know they can be the same e.g. <attribute_name_1> =
> <property_name 1>
>
> attributes:
> <attribute_name_1>:
> type:string
> properties:
> <property_name 1>:
> type:string
>
>
> Back to reflection.
> I am proposing <attribute_name> = actual_<property_name> But I think
> it is best if I ask further clarification from YAML Profile authors.
> What do you think?
> What is your preferred solution?
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:15 PM
> To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
>
> Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say
> anything about naming conventions here.
>
> I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to emit an
> error if an attribute name is the same as a property name, because
> obviously this would break this feature.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > I see the following text in the JIRA:
> > According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be 'exposed',
> > with the same name, as attributes.
> >
> > Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know it
> > does not.
> > What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention like
> > “actual_<property_name>”?
> > Can I add this to the JIRA?
> >
> > -Steve B
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> >
> > Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in
> > 3.5.10.1?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Steve B
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by DeWayne Filppi <de...@cloudify.co>.
My reading suggests no rename was permitted. 'Reflect' seems definitive.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co> wrote:
> The reflection feature is mentioned very, very briefly in just that one
> sentence in the spec. They is no mention of changing names, so I am
> expecting that the attribute names would be identical to the property
> names. In that case, there would be a conflict if an attribute has the same
> name as a property -- otherwise how would the property be reflected? That's
> why I'm assuming that for this to work we should not allow an attribute
> name to override a property name.
>
> My preferred solution is not to add any custom prefixes in ARIA, because
> they would not be portable
>
> The TOSCA spec has many authors, and it would be hard to track down the
> particular one who wrote this sentence... Personally, I think this is an
> awful and unclear feature.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > Back 1 step please.
> > Are you saying that attribute names and property names within a Type MUST
> > be different?
> > As far as I know they can be the same e.g. <attribute_name_1> =
> > <property_name 1>
> >
> > attributes:
> > <attribute_name_1>:
> > type:string
> > properties:
> > <property_name 1>:
> > type:string
> >
> >
> > Back to reflection.
> > I am proposing <attribute_name> = actual_<property_name>
> > But I think it is best if I ask further clarification from YAML Profile
> > authors.
> > What do you think?
> > What is your preferred solution?
> >
> > -Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:15 PM
> > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> >
> > Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say
> anything
> > about naming conventions here.
> >
> > I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to emit an
> > error if an attribute name is the same as a property name, because
> > obviously this would break this feature.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I see the following text in the JIRA:
> > > According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be 'exposed',
> > > with the same name, as attributes.
> > >
> > > Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know it
> > > does not.
> > > What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention like
> > > “actual_<property_name>”?
> > > Can I add this to the JIRA?
> > >
> > > -Steve B
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> > >
> > > Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in
> > > 3.5.10.1?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Steve B
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co>.
The reflection feature is mentioned very, very briefly in just that one
sentence in the spec. They is no mention of changing names, so I am
expecting that the attribute names would be identical to the property
names. In that case, there would be a conflict if an attribute has the same
name as a property -- otherwise how would the property be reflected? That's
why I'm assuming that for this to work we should not allow an attribute
name to override a property name.
My preferred solution is not to add any custom prefixes in ARIA, because
they would not be portable
The TOSCA spec has many authors, and it would be hard to track down the
particular one who wrote this sentence... Personally, I think this is an
awful and unclear feature.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Back 1 step please.
> Are you saying that attribute names and property names within a Type MUST
> be different?
> As far as I know they can be the same e.g. <attribute_name_1> =
> <property_name 1>
>
> attributes:
> <attribute_name_1>:
> type:string
> properties:
> <property_name 1>:
> type:string
>
>
> Back to reflection.
> I am proposing <attribute_name> = actual_<property_name>
> But I think it is best if I ask further clarification from YAML Profile
> authors.
> What do you think?
> What is your preferred solution?
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:15 PM
> To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
>
> Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say anything
> about naming conventions here.
>
> I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to emit an
> error if an attribute name is the same as a property name, because
> obviously this would break this feature.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > I see the following text in the JIRA:
> > According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be 'exposed',
> > with the same name, as attributes.
> >
> > Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know it
> > does not.
> > What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention like
> > “actual_<property_name>”?
> > Can I add this to the JIRA?
> >
> > -Steve B
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
> >
> > Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> > steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in
> > 3.5.10.1?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Steve B
> > >
> > >
> >
>
RE: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by Steve Baillargeon <st...@ericsson.com>.
Back 1 step please.
Are you saying that attribute names and property names within a Type MUST be different?
As far as I know they can be the same e.g. <attribute_name_1> = <property_name 1>
attributes:
<attribute_name_1>:
type:string
properties:
<property_name 1>:
type:string
Back to reflection.
I am proposing <attribute_name> = actual_<property_name>
But I think it is best if I ask further clarification from YAML Profile authors.
What do you think?
What is your preferred solution?
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:15 PM
To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say anything about naming conventions here.
I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to emit an error if an attribute name is the same as a property name, because obviously this would break this feature.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon < steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> I see the following text in the JIRA:
> According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be 'exposed',
> with the same name, as attributes.
>
> Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know it
> does not.
> What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention like
> “actual_<property_name>”?
> Can I add this to the JIRA?
>
> -Steve B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
>
> Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in
> 3.5.10.1?
> >
> > Regards
> > Steve B
> >
> >
>
Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co>.
Steve, we cannot change the TOSCA spec, and the spec does not say anything
about naming conventions here.
I think, though, that an obvious part of this JIRA will be to emit an error
if an attribute name is the same as a property name, because obviously this
would break this feature.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> I see the following text in the JIRA:
> According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be 'exposed', with
> the same name, as attributes.
>
> Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know it does
> not.
> What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention like
> “actual_<property_name>”?
> Can I add this to the JIRA?
>
> -Steve B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
> To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
>
> Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
> steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> > Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in
> 3.5.10.1?
> >
> > Regards
> > Steve B
> >
> >
>
RE: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by Steve Baillargeon <st...@ericsson.com>.
I see the following text in the JIRA:
According to the TOSCA 1.0 spec, property value should be 'exposed', with the same name, as attributes.
Does the spec really say to use the same name? As far as I know it does not.
What about using a better reflected attribute naming convention like “actual_<property_name>”?
Can I add this to the JIRA?
-Steve B
-----Original Message-----
From: Tal Liron [mailto:tal@cloudify.co]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:48 PM
To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon < steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi
> Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in 3.5.10.1?
>
> Regards
> Steve B
>
>
Re: Attribute and Property Reflection
Posted by Tal Liron <ta...@cloudify.co>.
Not right now, but there is an open JIRA to support it.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Steve Baillargeon <
steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi
> Does ARIA support "attribute and property reflection" defined in 3.5.10.1?
>
> Regards
> Steve B
>
>