[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIA-119?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ran Ziv updated ARIA-119:
-------------------------
Description:
TOSCA doesn't define a syntax for specifying which edge (source/target) of the
relationship a relationship operation should run on. At the moment, this will
be determined by the workflow author.
We could provided a syntax where the `implementation` field value would also
hold the information for the edge, e.g.:
{{implementation: script.sh @ SOURCE}}
SOURCE and TARGET are already familiar "TOSCA constants", and the
implementation field already has special syntax using the "@" sign so this
seems to make the most sense.
was:
TOSCA doesn't define a syntax for specifying which edge (source/target) of the
relationship a relationship operation should run on. At the moment, this will
be determined by the workflow author.
We could provided a syntax where the `implementation` field value would also
hold the information for the edge, e.g.:
implementation: script.sh @ SOURCE
SOURCE and TARGET are already familiar "TOSCA constants", and the
implementation field already has special syntax using the "@" sign so this
seems to make the most sense.
> Syntax for executing a relationship operation on a specific edge
> (source/target)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARIA-119
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIA-119
> Project: AriaTosca
> Issue Type: Story
> Reporter: Ran Ziv
> Priority: Minor
>
> TOSCA doesn't define a syntax for specifying which edge (source/target) of
> the relationship a relationship operation should run on. At the moment, this
> will be determined by the workflow author.
> We could provided a syntax where the `implementation` field value would also
> hold the information for the edge, e.g.:
> {{implementation: script.sh @ SOURCE}}
> SOURCE and TARGET are already familiar "TOSCA constants", and the
> implementation field already has special syntax using the "@" sign so this
> seems to make the most sense.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
