Thanks Paul, weâll take this up for review. In the meantime, a couple of additional comments:
If we were to rename the âvalid_target_typesâ keyword, then perhaps âvalid_target_capability_typesâ may be the more accurate description.
As we discussed, I believe your pattern can be supported by subclassing capability types. You mentioned that might be too cumbersome, but Iâll try to work through your example to
get a feel for how bad it really is
ð
Thanks again for all your helpful feedback.
Chris
From: <>
On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 3:19 AM
To:
Subject: [tosca-comment] Restricting relationship types to node types and node types with capability types.
At present relationship type definitions may contain a restriction to limit their application to node types which contain one or more of the specified capability types. Currently the name of this keyword is valid_target_types
which is somewhat inaccurate and could be confusing.
Furthermore I have a pattern for node extension which would benefit from an additional limitation on relationship types so that they were only applicable to specified node types.
Therefore I propose that relationship type definition is amended as follows:
Keyname
Required
Definition/Type
Description
â
valid_target_types
No
list of
string
This keyname is deprecated; valid_target_node_capabilities is now preferred.
An optional list of one or more names of Capability Types that must exist within nodes which are valid targets for this relationship. If undefined,
target nodes may have any or no Capability Types defined.
valid_target_node_capabilities
no
list of
string
An optional list of one or more names of Capability Types that must exist within nodes which are valid targets for this relationship. If undefined,
target nodes may have any or no Capability Types defined.
valid_target_node_types
no
list of
string
An optional list of one or more names of Node Types that are valid targets for this relationship. If undefined, all Node Types are valid targets.
If both valid_target_node_types and valid_target_node_capabilities are specified then they would be ANDed, i.e. the relationship type would be applicable only to a nodes of the specified type if it had one or more of
the specified capabilities.
Paul Jordan
OSS Specialist
BT Technology |
Tel
+44 (0) 3316252643
|
This email contains information from BT that might be privileged
or confidential. And it's only meant for the person above. If that's not you, we're sorry - we must have sent it to you by mistake. Please email us to let us know, and don't copy or forward it to anyone else. Thanks.
We monitor our email systems and may record all our emails.
British Telecommunications plc
R/O : 81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England: No 1800000
