Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Explain $get_artifact #124

Open
tliron opened this issue Jul 5, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Explain $get_artifact #124

tliron opened this issue Jul 5, 2022 · 1 comment

Comments

@tliron
Copy link
Contributor

tliron commented Jul 5, 2022

It is currently unclear what exactly the $get_artifact function returns.

Assuming it does return a URL or path to access the artifact (which I think is most logical), it does not specify what component would be accessing it and how. For example, if it is a file path, is it something that the node would have to access, e.g. on its local host or in cloud storage? Or is it something for the "orchestrator" to access? URLs can have the same problem, because the orchestration/management control pane could be different from the node's various data planes.

I don't have a clear proposal on what we should do. Perhaps it is best left to the implementation to do whatever makes sense. Or maybe the function could have an extra argument to provide a "directive" of some sort. Or perhaps these directives should be in the artifact definition. Whatever we decide, it would help if the spec had some description of possible results.

@tliron tliron changed the title Explain get_artifact Explain $get_artifact Jul 12, 2022
@lauwers
Copy link
Contributor

lauwers commented Jul 16, 2022

My interpretation is that the 'get_attribute' function is strictly for the orchestrator to access the artifact. If the intent is for the orchestrator to "deploy" that artifact onto a remote node, then that would be done using an operation implementation (as provided using some other artifact).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants