brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Kennedy <andrew.kenn...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] catalog YAML format consistency
Date Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:28:18 GMT
+1

I agree that we need to maintain consistency in our YAML and BOM files, but
not just at the level of Brooklyn item and entity syntax. There should also
be a consistent structural format to the files. For example, when
specifying configuration, we allow items both inside the `brooklyn.config`
map, and outside it. For short examples, missing out `brooklyn.config` is
acceptable, but in general we should use it. There should also be
consistency in ordering the parts of an entity or catalog entry definition,
as well as the formatting of maps, lists and strings.

The following is a suggested style guide, for discussion.

- https://gist.github.com/grkvlt/62ee0ddeea2f4503f82ad25c2f9b31fd

The normative statements are listed here, and the document linked above
contains a conforming YAML fragment showing how they are interpreted.

1. Blueprints MUST place all configuration inside a `brooklyn.config` map,
and MUST use the fully qualified configuration key name
2. Lists MUST be indented properly, to allow IDE folding to work properly
3. Keywords MUST be formatted as `lowerCamel` tokens
4. Sensor, configuration key and section names MUST be formatted as
`lower-hyphen.dot-separated` tokens
5. The preamble for a catalog entry SHOULD contain the following keys,
which MUST appear in this order: version, id, name, description, iconUrl,
origin, license, licenseUrl, publish
6. Entities SHOULD contain the following sections, which MUST appear in
this order: brooklyn.parameters, brooklyn.config, brooklyn.initializers,
brooklyn.enrichers, brooklyn.policies, brooklyn.children
7. Catalog items SHOULD contain the following keys, which MUST appear in
this order: id, name, description, itemType, item
8. Entities and entity specifications SHOULD contain the following keys,
which MUST appear in this order: type, id, name, description, services
9. Names MUST be quoted strings
10. The description value MUST use the multi-line string syntax
11. Parameters SHOULD use the following keys, which MUST appear in this
order: name, label, description, type, default, constraints

Andrew.


On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 at 18:08 Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks all,
>
> Alex's suggestion makes a lot of sense. So we should:
>
>  1. agree short-term preferred syntax
>  2. update our docs and examples to *always* use that
>  3. discuss improvements for a more powerful syntax, and the longer term
>     bigger long-term overhaul.
>
> It should be trivial to warn someone if they have not included the
> "itemType", so I think we should do that short-term.
>
> ---
> Any more opinions for the preferred syntax?
>
> Aled
>
>
> On 20/06/2016 14:44, Geoff Macartney wrote:
> > +1 for the proposal, and for staging it.
> >
> > I actually quite like the suggestion of making items/item entirely
> consistent (by requiring both).   If I have
> >
> > 1 brooklyn.catalog:
> > 2   version: "2.0.0-SNAPSHOT"
> > 3
> > 4   item:
> > 5     type: server
> > 6     id: testy
> > 7     name: Testy McServer
> >
> > and decide for some reason that I need a second item (maybe move one
> here from another file), I can’t just add it below line 7.  Instead I have
> to go editing lines 3-7 to add “items:” and change the indentation.
> Sticking to items+item consistently will make this sort of refactoring less
> tedious.  Just a thought.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ————————————————————
> > Gnu PGP key - http://is.gd/TTTTuI
> >
> >
> >> On 20 Jun 2016, at 14:17, Svetoslav Neykov <
> svetoslav.neykov@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 for the proposal.
> >>
> >> I find the current item-items functionality logical. "item" is used in
> leaf items, "items" is used in non-leaf items. Forcing a non-leaf root just
> so we always have "items" is overhead.
> >>
> >> Svet.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 20.06.2016 г., at 15:47, Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> The YAML format for adding catalog items accepts several different
> ways of defining them. This has led to our examples being inconsistent, our
> code more complicated, and potential confusion for users when they see
> different things that turn out to mean the same.
> >>>
> >>> I think we should standardise on one approach, and deprecate the other
> ways.
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> _*Current Code*_
> >>>
> >>> An example .bom file is shown below:
> >>>
> >>>    brooklyn.catalog:
> >>> items:
> >>> - id: entity1
> >>>    version: "1.0.0"
> >>>    itemType: entity
> >>>    item:
> >>>      type: org.apache.brooklyn.entity.machine.MachineEntity
> >>>
> >>> Variants:
> >>>
> >>> * If defining just a single item in the .bom file, you can optionally
> >>>   miss out the "items".
> >>> * You can miss out the "itemType" - it will guess at it by trying to
> >>>   treat it as an entity, a template, a location or a policy. The
> >>>   default is "entity".
> >>> * You can include "services:" for entity or template types, or you can
> >>>   miss it out if there is just one entity in the item.
> >>> * Similar to "services:", you can include "brooklyn.policies:" or
> >>>   "brooklyn.locations:".
> >>>   If itemType is missing, this helps to infer the type. If it does not
> >>>   agree with itemType, then we add it as the item type and it will
> >>>   fail later.
> >>> * You can define the item metadata at any level - it could be directly
> >>>   under "brooklyn.catalog" (in which case it applies to all items), or
> >>>   under a specific item (in which case it overrides any more general
> >>>   metadata).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> An example of a .bom for a single item is shown below:
> >>>
> >>> brooklyn.catalog:
> >>> id: entity2
> >>> version: "1.0.0"
> >>> itemType: entity
> >>> item:
> >>>    type: org.apache.brooklyn.entity.machine.MachineEntity
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> _*Proposal*_
> >>>
> >>> I suggest we have the following stricter rules. Anything else is
> deprecated, logging a warning.
> >>>
> >>> * Always include "itemType".
> >>> * For entity, policy and location: do not include "services:",
> >>>   "brooklyn.policies:" or "brooklyn.locations:" - i.e. it will expect
> >>>   exactly one type in the item.
> >>> * For template, always expect "services:" (even if there is just one
> >>>   thing). This is consistent with the YAML required when deploying an
> >>>   application.
> >>> * Always include "items", even if there is just one item in it.
> >>>   (reasoning: we do not support "service" versus "services", so why
> >>>   support "item").
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We should change the following (breaking backwards compatibility,
> because it's really a bug):
> >>>
> >>> * If the itemType differs from the actual type of the item, then fail.
> >>>
> >>> Aled
> >>>
> >>> p.s. I'm in two minds about "item" versus "items": it is simpler with
> the single item, and having "item" underneath "items" means it's not quite
> like the "services" analogy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
> --

Andrew Kennedy ; Founder clocker.io project ; @grkvlt ; Cloudsoft

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message