Lingli I think that you omitted an important fact.
The workflow proposal in TOSCA 1.1 is based on native workflow which is similar to what Aria and Cloudify use and extend upon it. There is an on going open discussion to use a delegate model to allow other to "delegate" the workflow from TOSCA to external workflow but that is not yet decided and would only be included in future versions of the spec. In any case the TOSCA spec support both options so a degree of preference to the native option. I really don't see how we can have an *open* discussion on modeling without presenting at least both options and i'm concerned that the way this topic is presented in the agenda is therefore already biased toward a certain direction and doesn't encourage a real open discussion on this subject. Michael Brener tried to provide a balanced view on the history and evolution of Workflows in TOSCA vs Similar DSLs <http://cloudify.co/brochures/tosca-workflows-Apr-2017.pdf> in his paper which was also shared with the OASIS community. I think that it could serve as a good background to the topic. Lingli you also made the following comment which i found to be inaccurate at best. " native workflow proposed by gigaspaces was turned down by the consensus of the OPENO community," There was practical reasons for taking the direction that Open-O took wrt to workflow which wasn't based on any technical merit per-se but mostly on practical aspects (which is a fair consideration). There was already existing investment in other workflow engine as part of the seed code and there was preference to use that as a first choice given the aggressive timeline of the first release. There was never a decision NOT to use native-workflow as been suggested or any technical argument that was associated with this decision or direction. As Brian mentioned other projects that didn't had that same constraints took a different direction and as i mentioned above the TOSCA spec itself took that similar direction as well. One last non related comment You and others are referring to the discussion and decisions in Open-O interchangeably as if it represent a well thought standard process or an community led process. While i think that Open-O was founded with that intent in mind it was still fairly young community and didn't reached the level of maturity of a real open community and therefore i would encourage people in ONAP to look more consciously and do more fact checking whenever this reference is brought up as an argument in a discussion. I think that as we evolve with ONAP community we should be more open minded and inclusive in considering other alternatives even to things that were previously decided in previous related projects and make sure that the decision and discussion serve best the current project goal as many of the consideration and constraints of those previous projects are not relevant anymore. This is specifically true as we move toward more cloud-native, dev-ops and container based approach. Nati S. On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:10 AM Lingli Deng <denglingli at chinamobile.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > You may consult your gigaspace's colleage, as my recollection, native > workflow proposed by gigaspaces was turned down by the consensus of the > OPENO community, we decided to use BPMN/BPEL type of workflow, you can > also find out the workflow in MSO /APPC of OPENCOMP are also using BPMN/DG > > Thanks, > > Lingli > > > > *From:* onap-discuss-bounces at lists.onap.org [mailto: > onap-discuss-bounces at lists.onap.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael Brenner > *Sent:* 2017?4?26? 11:09 > *To:* denghui (L) <denghui12 at huawei.com> > *Cc:* onap-tsc at lists.onap.org; JANA, RITTWIK (RITTWIK) < > rjana at research.att.com>; onap-discuss at lists.onap.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [onap-discuss] Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th > > > > But no TOSCA native workflows ... why? > > Michael > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:03 PM, denghui (L) <denghui12 at huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for your suggestion, workflow is already covered in the Shitao?s > session, they will discuss > > 1) OPENCOMP Workflow > > 2) OPEN-O Workflow. > > > > Best regards, > > > > DENG Hui > > > > *From:* Michael Brenner [mailto:michael at gigaspaces.com] > *Sent:* Friday, April 21, 2017 7:14 AM > *To:* Amir Levy > *Cc:* JANA, RITTWIK (RITTWIK); Nguyenphu, Thinh (Nokia - US/Irving); > denghui (L); onap-discuss at lists.onap.org; Nati Shalom; > onap-tsc at lists.onap.org > *Subject:* Re: [onap-discuss] Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th > > > > I'll be happy to attend and take part in the discussion and would like to > suggest to add workflows to the agenda ...a topic which I offer to moderate. > Best regards, > Michael > > On Apr 20, 2017 4:51 PM, "Amir Levy" <amir at gigaspaces.com> wrote: > > Thanks DENG for leading this initiative. > > > > I would love to share few quick links to prepare for this meeting: > > > > We have a two parts video that provides TOSCA in practice training : Part > 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMkqLI6o-58 and > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGmpi--7-A > > > > And Michael Brenner for ETSI/NFV and TOSCA has recently drafted a in-depth > comparison between model-driven and task-driven workflows: > http://getcloudify.org/brochures/tosca-workflows-Apr-2017.pdf > > > > ? amir > > > > amir at gigaspaces.com +1 408 916 8572 <(408)%20916-8572> > > > > On Apr 20, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Nguyenphu, Thinh (Nokia - US/Irving) < > thinh.nguyenphu at nokia.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Rittwik and DENG, > > > > Is modeling discussion covering network service and VNF descriptors? Or it > is broader to cover all of the ONAP functions? > > > > Yes, I am planning to attend. > > > > Thinh > > > > *From:* onap-discuss-bounces at lists.onap.org [ > mailto:onap-discuss-bounces at lists.onap.org > <onap-discuss-bounces at lists.onap.org>] *On Behalf Of *denghui (L) > *Sent:* Thursday, April 20, 2017 3:35 AM > *To:* denghui (L) <denghui12 at huawei.com>; onap-tsc at lists.onap.org; > onap-discuss at lists.onap.org > *Cc:* JANA, RITTWIK (RITTWIK) <rjana at research.att.com> > *Subject:* [onap-discuss] Modelling discussion on Friday May 5th > > > > Hello all > > > > We are happy to let you know that we are hosting a modeling session on > Friday, May 5th, AT&T Lab. > > 9:00-10:30 Shitao moderate: TOSCA NFV Profile > > 10:30-12:00 Rittwik moderate: AT&T Parser > > 13:30-16:00 DengHui moderate: Modelling & Opendeployment > > > > Please kindly help to let us know if you are interested in joining us, so > that we can book a proper meeting room for our discussion > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rittwik & DENG Hui > > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > onap-discuss at lists.onap.org > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss > > > > > > > > -- > > *Michael Brenner, **Chief Architect NFV* > > ------------------------------ > > M: +1-732-895-5772 <(732)%20895-5772> > > 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-discuss mailing list > onap-discuss at lists.onap.org > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-tsc/attachments/20170426/44855e85/attachment-0001.html>
