Hi Ran/Tal, Thanks for the information. It's good to know you already have this as part of your backlog. We just need to know if you have plans to include this in your upcoming release ?
Regards, DJ -----Original Message----- From: Ran Ziv [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Query related to substitution mapping i agree for the most part, although I don't see it as part of the instantiation phase refactoring, but rather as a completely separate feature which I'd like us to work on in the near future. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Tal Liron <[email protected]> wrote: > Your expectations are reasonable: that ARIA would look at all of its > current service instances and try to match reqs-and-caps with > substitutions. > > However, we are a bit far from implementing this. Currently, ARIA only > knows how to match reqs-and-caps within the service. > > Also, this feature has to be planned rather carefully: in some cases > the user will not want such automatic matching to happen with services > that just happen to exist in ARIA's db. I think this a great place to > introduce a new Policy that would allow the user to configure exactly > how matching would happen: should the matching prefer external > substitutions over internal nodes? are there limited to how many could > be matched? (like the "occurrences" definition in Capability) should > matching only happen with services of a certain csar/template? etc. > > We are planning some work ahead to refactor the way we instantiate > services, and I think at least some parts of this feature should be > included in that. >
