Page Comparison

• for DataNode attributes (Fragments) in our DB we will use a 'glorified' Map to store these and pass them on through the layers as a single object
• For API methods that require 2-4 parameters there is no need to create separate objects

• Payload will be glorified map 
• For non payload parameters, if there is more than 3/4 they might  get encapsulated in an object. (to be decided on a case by case basis)

• Input streams are more generic
• Overloading of API to support both leads bloated interface

03/11/20 Team meeting Niamh, Toine, Rishi, Aditya, Bruno, Phillipe

We have decided to use (buffered) input streams.

API uses (generated) ID's or customer provided names? If names are used should we return IDs at all?

03/11/20 Team meeting notes - Niamh, Toine, Rishi, Aditya, Bruno, Phillipe
Pros:

1. Using IDs would have some performance advantage
2. Using the ID seems natural in some cases
3. Using IDs would allow for 'renaming' where possible

Cons:

1. Using ID would mean client has to get/cache ID's all the time.
2. Supporting both names and ID will lead to 'duplicate' methods in Java API and REST API
3. Using a meaningless ID for Module instead for namespace & revision could lead to issues when debugging (only logs with IDs available)

Other considerations:

1. The Java API follow the REST API. If the rest API is using names then the java API should also use names.
2. Create methods should return the (id of the) objects created. If the module already exists, an exception should be thrown.
3. All ID's generated should be in the response. If we return the ID we also need methods to use the ID. If we update the java API to use ID, we should also update the REST API. 
4. OSS RC does NOT use IDs for models
5. OSS RC Does DB Generated ID for objects (fragments)
6. Need separate decision for
   1. Dataspace
   2. Module Set
   3. Module
   4. Anchor
   5. Fragment  

04/11/20 Team meeting notes - Niamh, Toine, Rishi, Tony

We should not expose internal DB ID for dataspace, module set, module, anchor or fragment. 

DB ids should be fully encapsulated. Exposure of DB ids to clients limits freedom in the future.

We do not want to expose them for the following reasons:

• Database Migration

Database technology uplift/swap out will not guarantee that ids will be immutable. Any client that uses DB ids would be broken.

I can see this being quite important for ONAP trails going to commercially supported ONAP deployments.

• Database Optimization

We would like to reserve the right to change database ID's. You eliminate the option that will shuffle the ID's without impacting the client.

• ID Persistence 

If there is a fragment that has restricted properties that can only be set at creation. This fragment will be identified by an xpath and internally by a DB id. An update of this (restricted) attribute will require a delete/create – this will change the DB id, but not the xpath.

If a client had cached (or otherwise stored) the DB id, then their use case would be broken

1. Dataspace - Name will be provided by user
2. Module Set -Name will be provided by user
3. Module - Name will be provided by user
4. Anchor - can have multiple ID's (will be mapped to entities outside of CPS). We will return URI for an anchor. We will use a generic key value pair map. We will do a check to make sure it is unique and return URI for anchor.
5. Fragment  - XPath is the correct unique identifier and will be added automatically

1. Maybe only allow if no associated data exist e.g. all fragments using a module should be deleted before a module can be deleted.
2. If the associated data still exists, an exception could be thrown (from REST API)

04/11/20Team meeting notes - Niamh, Toine, Rishi, Tony

• We want to able to delete an anchor 
• We should be able to delete a dataspace - un deploying use case
• We need to be able to delete the module and module sets associated with the dataspace.
• Rest API (or any other possible user interface) will have safety checks before deletion:
  • Dataspace - do not delete if any module(set)s are still associated
  • Module Set - do not deleted if any modules (or possible anchors)  associated 
  • Module - do not delete if any any anchor associated with it
  • Anchor - delete allowed from REST (will delete everything underneath)
  • Fragment - delete allowed from REST (will delete everything underneath)

1. Can add business logic to check on create if it already exists. If it exists (and is the same) we do not create it (silently ignore, this is called 'idempotent'.

04/11/20 Team meeting notes - Niamh, Toine, Rishi, Tony

For now we are not going to be idempotent but we may consider it in the future.

Need to be document clearly as part of Java API proposal (i.e in this wiki!)

1) can it be done by xpaths 

2) additional parameters

3) part of query builder?

11/11/20 Team meeting notes - Niamh, Toine, Aditya, Tony, Ruslan, Claudio

We will use an optional parameter (suggested name outputSpecification) to specify the leaf(s) (attributes). All queries will return DataNode(s). If you do not specify leaf(s),  all leaves will be returned.

alternative we could have more specialized methods like

getDataNode(String cpsPath)

queryDataNodes(String cpsPathQuery)

And we could still consider an path builder pattern (like a query builder)

PathBuilder.withChildOfType()

PathBuilder.withAttributeValue()

11/11/20 Team meeting notes - Niamh, Toine, Aditya, Tony, Ruslan, Claudio

We decided to use key instead of ID.

We have decided to split the behavior into different methods e.g

getDataNode(String cpsPath)

queryDataNodes(String cpsPathQuery)

We do intend to use a query builder too and it will be extended in step with any progress on the xpath query supported functionality

Will we have separate methods to validate our modules or data?

Alternatively validate on submitting of data/modules (and throw validation exception if needed)

11/11/20 Team meeting notes - Niamh, Toine, Aditya, Tony, Ruslan, Claudio

We intend to publish validation in a separate java library. 

We will do validation on write to ensure whatever is being stored in the database is valid and will give the user a fast failure. 

We will not have separate validation methods on the main Java API.

The parser has detailed exception classes instead of one exception with different messages, we need to ask ourselves if we want to have a similar pattern

11/11/20 Team meeting notes - Niamh, Toine, Aditya, Tony, Ruslan, Claudio

We intend to have our own detailed validation list of validation exception classes.

We will have an exception class hierarchy like below:

• CPSValidationException
  • ModelValidationException
    • SpecificException1
    • SpecificException2
  • DataValidationException
    • SpecificException3
    • SpecificException4
  • PathValidationException
    • SpecificException5

When applicable the following order should be applied

1. Dataspace
2. ModuleSet
3. Module
4. Namespace
5. Revision
6. Anchor
7. CpsPath

Options are:

1. Client (owner of the modules)
2. CPS

• CPS will be responsible for storing module sets.
• Module sets are stored as source definition.
• The client will be responsible for providing a unique name within a dataspace. 

• The module set uniqueness within a dataspace to be identified by string identifier now, also by content later