There are a number of reasons, but the most important are: 1) The Decorator enables attributes and/or methods to be used to construct a new object dynamically at runtime; the composite is fixed at design time 2) The Decorator enables one to use all or part of an object to build a new object. The composite, like the ONF spec pattern and the TMF spec pattern, is restricted to using the entire object.
regards, John On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:44 PM, 邓灵莉 <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe we are using the composite pattern currently. > Why the decorator pattern would be better? > > Lingli > > > 发自网易邮箱大师 > On 11/23/2017 05:03, John Strassner <[email protected]> wrote: > > While I agree with the requirements that Andy said (e.g., a > ServiceComponent should support multiple Services, and a ServiceComponent > should exist independent of a Service), > > 1) this is assuming that a ServiceComponent is as defined in the MEF > 2) I don't think the existing model works - you either need a composite > pattern or a decorator pattern to do this correctly > > Of the two, I believe that a decorator pattern is better suited (that's > how we modeled this in the MEF). > > regards, > John > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM, MAYER, ANDREW J <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Xu, >> >> >> >> Thank you for the questions. I provided a partial answer in-line with >> your questions. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Andy >> >> >> >> *Andy Mayer, Ph.D. *| PMTS, D2.0 Integration | AT&T Labs | Phone: +1 >> (732) 420-9945 <(732)%20420-9945> | [email protected] >> >> >> >> *From:* yangxu (H) [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:29 AM >> *To:* MAYER, ANDREW J <[email protected]>; FORSYTH, JAMES <[email protected]>; >> SCAGGS, KEVIN <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [onap-discuss] Questions on the ONAP R2+ Resource IM >> >> >> >> Dear Jimmy, Andy and Kevin >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_-7Eks0567&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3UIWLh7P2rAFm1qdZ7jMYQ&m=DbssT-o1dpLv7XFdBf9mssaQbsxlSnlqaWzswYhP6ws&s=ZB3dq-yjpATtQpVg2ouQJGL7G0nAaG5DV3y5DUSS2F4&e=> >> , >> >> As discussed in the modeling call, there’re several questions regarding >> the resource IM that need to be answered. Please find them below: >> >> To Andy & Kevin, >> >> 1) Regarding the design time model (the figure shows the relationship >> between ServiceDesc, ServiceComponentDesc, ResourceCatalogItem, VNFDesc and >> VNFCDesc), the AID document states that "a service component has a zero to >> many relationship to service while the vnf component has is related to >> exactly one vnf". What's the case for a service component to have zero >> relationship to service? Does it imply that a service component can exist >> alone (without being involved in a service) in design time? >> >> [AJM] Service Component Descriptors may exist independently from the >> Service Descriptor since they may be created as “building blocks” >> representing specific types of service functionality (e.g., firewall >> functionality) used to construct Service Descriptors. Also, a Service >> Component Descriptor may be employed by for than one Service Descriptor. >> For VNFC Descriptors, the VNFC Descriptor is dependent on the containing >> VNF Descriptor for its existence, and the VNFC Descriptor is not shared >> across VNF Descriptors. >> >> 2) Regarding the vNF deployment diagram figure (the run time model): >> >> a) It seems it’s not updated like the design time model, do you >> have any plan to align it to the design time model? >> >> [AJM] We are currently updating the Run-Time diagram to align. >> >> b) For the current figure, we want to know the answers for: >> >> i. What's the relationship between >> VNFC instance and VNF module? What's the usage of VNF module? >> >> ii. Why does network only associate >> with the VM, but not with Docker/LXC? Why is the cardinality 1:1? >> >> iii. Why does storage have no >> association with VNFC instance? >> >> iv. Why does VNFImage have 1:1 >> association with VNF instance, instead of VNFC instance? >> >> v. No model for network port? >> >> To Jimmy, >> >> First thank you and Pamela for the comments you provided last >> time, I updated several questions afterwards, shown below: >> >> 1) Is the orchestration-status of the VNFC similar to the vnfcState >> defined in ETSI? (vnfcState describes the state of a VNFC instance, >> possible values are: STARTED, STOPPED. STARTED means the VNFC instance is >> up and running, and STOPPED means the VNFC instance has been shut down (but >> not terminated/deleted). Similar to the VM power on/off concept) >> >> 2) Please clarify more on the operational-status of VNF, are the >> valid values “in-service-path” and “out-of-service-path”? and what do they >> mean? >> >> 3) Orchestration-status of the VNF is also not clear to us, could you >> elaborate more on the usage of it? For example, the valid values? >> >> >> >> Thank you all for the help! >> >> Best regards, >> >> Xu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> onap-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss >> >> > > > -- > regards, > John > > -- regards, John
_______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
