Hi Nati and all,
I think we should focus on the requirement from opensource which is to include
standard workflow DSL such as BPMN or BPEL as an alternative workflow approach
for TOSCA service lifecycle management process modelling, rather than how to
figure out a "sophisticated" mechanism to address all the raised questions of
this approach, or we can't accomplish it in a predictable timeline.
The solution might not look to be perfect right now but work very well in the
orchestration implementation.
Even in TOSCA Specification, there're still some parts needed to be improved,
but we embrace the ideas and allow them to evolve in the right direction.
Please let me share a famous Chinese saying here "不积硅步,无以至千里", or in western,
we say "Rome was not built in a day".
Thanks,
Zhaoxing
原始邮件
发件人： ＜[email protected]＞
收件人： ＜[email protected]＞赵化冰10201488
抄送人： ＜[email protected]＞ ＜[email protected]＞
日 期 ：2017年05月11日 21:42
主 题 ：Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] [modeling] TOSCA BPMN supportproposal at
OASIS TOSCA WG
"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 ＜[email protected]＞ 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, ＜[email protected]＞ 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
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
--
Michael Brenner, Chief Architect NFVM:
+1-732-895-5772http://getcloudify.org@cloudifysource
_______________________________________________
ONAP-TSC mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc_______________________________________________
ONAP-TSC mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
