Github user ahgittin commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-brooklyn/pull/1020#issuecomment-157390067
> That make sense. What about creating a tosca module similar to the camp
module? Would that work for you?
I think that might make sense; currently that's what the separate
`brooklyn-tosca` project is, in my mind. It would then be a question of
whether that should be promoted to Brooklyn.
Creating a `brooklyn-tosca` project in Brooklyn which doesn't actually do
TOSCA but only supplies a bit of metadata feels very confusing.
Sorry I'm even more against the direction this is going.
I understand it is easier for you to do development if TOSCA metadata is
specified directly in Brooklyn; but it makes Brooklyn larger and in a way that
is harder for other people. I'd really like to find a way you can do what you
need to do without baking TOSCA references in to Brooklyn. (I see you've made
MySql now depend on TOSCA, to get that annotation; bear in mind since inception
MySql and Tomat etc have been defined without any reference to CAMP or even
YAML, and they still are.) Any concepts TOSCA wants, it makes sense to
consider adding, but in a pure form which could conceivably be useful for
non-TOSCA purposes. Otherwise I think you're best off redeclaring
tosca-friendly items in the downstream, or a translation/overlay.
In short I don't think we have enough pull towards TOSCA to yet bake in
this metadata in Brooklyn. At some point that might change but I can't see
this merged without at minimum community discussion.
@sjcorbett WDYT?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
