Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
TOSCA 115 Capability Interfaces Kevin Wilson, Travis Tripp, Kishore Jagannath Nov4, 2013
TOSCA 115 – Issue Description Requirements and capabilities should provide specific interface definitions. So that the designer of a app can depend on a contract set of public properties that are to be provided and a contracted set method/interfaces that are provided by the requirement. For example: If I have a dependency on a DB Server, and need to run SQL on that server, at design time, I would like to know the methods supported by the DBServer requirement so that I can leverage that in my component scripting. On the implementation side providing the component, the script/method to execute the script may be different for each DBServer type. IE commands to run SQL on MySQL are not the same commands that would be used for Oracle. However, the SQL may the same in some cases. Similar methods/use cases exist for J2EE server deploy methods etc. By providing a interface on the Requirement/Capability we can leverage the workflows specific to the capability in a generic way. And the designer would be able to identify the contracted calls that are made available.
Highlights of Proposal Capability Types should have the ability to expose interfaces with one to many operations in addition to property definition. Node Type possessing the capability will now inherit the interface operations defined in the capability. Node Type having multiple capabilities will now inherit the interface operations declared in each of the capability NodeTypeImplementation will provide implementation for all the interface operations that the Node Type inherits from the capabilities + any interface operations that are define within Node Type. TBD- Do we still need to have interface operations within Node Types.
<CapabilityType name="xs:NCName" targetNamespace="xs:anyURI"? abstract="yes|no"? final="yes|no"?> <DerivedFromtypeRef="xs:QName"/> ? <PropertiesDefinition element="xs:QName"? type="xs:QName"?/> ? <Interfaces> <Interface name="xs:NCName | xs:anyURI"> <Operation name="xs:NCName"> <InputParameters> <InputParameter name="xs:string" type="xs:string" required="yes|no"?/> + </InputParameters> ? <OutputParameters> <OutputParameter name="xs:string" type="xs:string" required="yes|no"?/> + </OutputParameters> ? </Operation> + </Interface> + </Interfaces> ?
Design Experience • Capability Type • <ApacheWebServerCapability> • properties • interfaces Node Type <ApacheWebServer> Relationship Type <hosted on> • Requirement Type • <ApacheWebServeRequirement> • properties • interfaces Node Type <SugarCrmApp>
CapabilityType ApacheWebServer Capability PropertiesDefinition Operation Install configure RequirementType ApacheWebServer Requirement PropertiesDefinition Node Type SugarCRMApp Requirement ApacheWebServerRequirement RelationshipType RelationshipType SugarCrmAppOnApache Source ApacheWebServerRequirement Target ApacheWebServerCapability Node Type ApacheWebServer Capability ApacheWebServerCapability
NodeTypeB • <NodeType> • <PropertiesDefinition> • <RequirementDefinitions> • <Requirement1> • </RequirementDefinitions> • <NodeType> • NodeTypeA • <NodeType> • <PropertiesDefinition> • <CapabilityDefinitions> • <Capability1> • <Capability 2> • <Capability3> • </CapabilityDefinitions> • <Interfaces> • <Interface> • operations definition • <Interface> • <Interface> • Operations definition • <Interface> • <Interface> • Operations definition • <Interface> • <NodeType> Capability1 properties Requirement1 properties Relation Capability2 properties Capability3 properties