"The proposal has been discussed in the OASIS TOSCA for a couple of weeks and most of the members agreed on it except the strong pushback from Michael of Gigaspaces."
Huabing et al I wanted to ask that we will keep the discussion on a professional and not a personal level. First i want to clarify what were discussing here right now is not a question of declarative vs impressive workflow as it is being coined for some reason. What were really discussing is whether we use TOSCA as a configuration input or as a model that represent a live system and allow continues interaction with system through the model e.g. Model Driven. So the discussion is wether ONAP orchestration should be truly model driven or not and not whether we should support declarative vs imperative workflow and whether that workflow should be written in BPMN or some other language. There is also no real argument on whether you can or can't use BPMN as a workflow engine. Intact if things done right we should't even care about it. I think that we all agreed that an implementor can choose to run the workflow in what ever language or format he wishes and that should become a "black-box" from the Orchestrator perspective. To allow this kind of flexibility i.e. allow the implementor to choose the workflow language that fits best to his needs we need to define a clear interface on how the execution get called and also how the state of the model get effected once that execution is completed. That's what Michael is basically trying to say repetitively but unfortunately he's comment are being ignored. Both Michael myself are more than happy to work with you or anyone else on the proposal for defining those interfaces assuming that we agree with the goal and scope toward a true Model Driven orchestration. Speaking of a community process. I would appreciate if you could respond to the questions that was raised here an on the OASIS discussion about the proposal in order that we could have a constructive dialogue and move forward. Here is a summary of some of those questions that were left un answered: 1. What's in your proposal should be the effect on the model after the execution is completed? (I assume that right now this is considered out of scope in the current proposal right?) 2. Your making assumption on what works for Telco vs Simple use cases. (This goes with the declarative vs imperative for some reason even though i'm not sure how the two are even related). Can you share on what basis are you making those assumptions? 3. If we agree to leave that the implementation of the workflow should be treated as a blackbox why do we need a specific specification proposal for BPMN ? Let's start with that. As i mentioned we would be more than happy to work with you on those areas and put more clarity behind those items. Nati S. On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:03 AM Michael Brenner <mich...@gigaspaces.com> wrote: > Huabing, > > I recognize the need in ONAP to support delegation in TOSCA to external > workflow engines. I have said this repeatedly, and still am > miss-interpreted. > This has nothing to do with backward compatibility to TOSCA 1.0, it only > has to do with supporting "facts on the ground/existing implementations". > We should get this agreed once for all, and it became obvious in ONAP's > Friday modeling discussion. > > It also became clear that some of these "facts-on-the-ground" use TOSCA in > a limited way. This is OK, and I have no issue with that. I can support in > TOSCA TC to find the right mechanism to delegate externally, but only if we > do it in a way that is complete: that means we need to not only specify how > to "get out of TOSCA" but also has to include how to "get back to TOSCA", > and "what is the TOSCA orchestrator supposed to do after it delegates > externally". I suggest we work jointly to resolve these issues. > > Further, your claim that I am the only one opposing the half-way solution > on the table is incorrect, and you know it. Luc Boutier in the TOSCA TC is > also vehemently opposed, and partly at least for the same reasons as those > quoted by me. > > It would be great if we stop making unfounded claims in one community, by > quoting only partially what happens in another community, and it would be > better to focus joint energy to resolve the issue in a consistent and > complete technical manner in the TOSCA TC. Please realize that you > absolutely CANNOT resolve TOSCA TC discussions/debates in the ONAP > community alone, and this is not the appropriate way for you to convince me > to drop my opposition in TOSCA TC. > The right way to have me support this is by resolving the technical issues > that I raised. > > Best regards, > Michael > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:16 AM, <zhao.huab...@zte.com.cn> wrote: > >> Hi Amir and all, >> >> Both OPEN-O and OpenECOMP have used TOSCA for service topology modelling >> and BPMN/BPEL for lifecycle management process modelling. After the merger, >> ONAP will inherit the existing codes from OPEN-O and OpenECOMP and continue >> to use BPMN/BPEL in SO/VF-C. >> >> However, I noticed that TOSCA has removed the support for BPMN/BPEL in >> v1.1[1] which is recommended in the Topology and Orchestration >> Specification for Cloud Applications Version 1.0[2]. >> >> This incompatible change of TOSCA specification may cause unpredictable >> effects to existing opensource projects, in particular, the ONAP, which >> have already adopted BPMN as its lifecycle management process modelling. >> >> To harmonize the opensource and standards, I am co-proposing a >> proposal[3] with Lingli(CMCC), Claude(AT&T) and Shitaoto(Huawei) to suggest >> OASIS TOSCA revert standard workflow DSLs support such as BPMN/BPEL in the >> next version of simple YAML specification. >> >> The proposal has been discussed in the OASIS TOSCA for a couple of weeks >> and most of the members agreed on it except the strong pushback from >> Michael of Gigaspaces. >> >> I think this proposal is for the best interest of ONAP community, so I'm >> writing this mail to solicit supports from Gigaspaces and all the other >> community members who are both in ONAP and OASIS TOSCA WG. >> >> >> [1] >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/tosca/TOSCA-Simple-Profile-YAML/v1.1/TOSCA-Simple-Profile-YAML-v1.1.html >> >> [2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/tosca/TOSCA/v1.0/TOSCA-v1.0.html >> >> [3] >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tosca/download.php/60604/Issue_TOSCA318_Lack%20of%20BPMN%20BPEL%20support-v-2017-04-25.pptx >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Huabing >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> onap-discuss mailing list >> onap-discuss@lists.onap.org >> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Michael Brenner, Chief Architect NFV > ------------------------------ > M: +1-732-895-5772 http://getcloudify.org > <http://getcloudify.org?utm_source=signaturesatori&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Cloudify%204.0%20Webinar> > @cloudifysource > <https://twitter.com/CloudifySource> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company-beta/17918192/> > <https://github.com/cloudify-cosmo> > <https://www.youtube.com/cloudifysource> > > <http://getcloudify.org/webinars/the-new-cloudify-4.html?utm_source=signaturesatori&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Cloudify%204.0%20Webinar> > > _______________________________________________ > ONAP-TSC mailing list > onap-...@lists.onap.org > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc >
_______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list onap-discuss@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
