You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 13, 2021. It is now read-only.
As a Service Provider I want to be able to reuse another Service Instance for a new Service Provision request through OSB so that the end user can request nested instances on his own behalf.
Examples
Service Provider for a dedicated MySQL Cluster (RDBMS) so that a customer can provision n clusters. Further the customer should be able to provision n schemas on top of one of these clusters and also do bindings. This would lead to the following steps:
Catalog Item A provisions a Cluster
After Cluster provision the user should be able to provision further Schemas on that Cluster, which would mean that the catalog “dynamically” gets “Catalog Item B which provisions schema on the previous cluster”
After the schema is provisioned the regular bind as it is today for a simple MySQL Service Instance should follow
Details
Extend the Service Instance object with a parent<->child relationship of Service Instance.
Parent reference
To reference the parent the instance guid is used. OSB won't be able to validate it further and has to trust the platform for a valid reference (in terms of accessibility).
Proposal
Workflow - Create Service with child and existing parent
cf create-service ServiceA PlanA service-instance-a
// parentAlias is validated if the the child is in the same Context as the parent instance
(Optional) further this validation could also be supported by the Schema Object
Some remarks about the alias: It would be nice if the broker did not do CF specific stuff so that it can also be used from Kubernetes. Mentioning this due to the description:
The alias should be context scoped. This means the alias must be unique within a distinct context (i.e. Cloud Foundry Organization and Space).
Moreover, haven't really thought about it in detail, but alias uniqueness might be affected by the fact that services can be shared across spaces and organizations.
@mcelep sorry I missed to update the proposal on with our latest decisions. We had the same thoughts and decided to only reference by guid. This should also allow the shared across spaces and organizations use case.
Problem
As a Service Provider I want to be able to reuse another Service Instance for a new Service Provision request through OSB so that the end user can request nested instances on his own behalf.
Examples
Service Provider for a dedicated MySQL Cluster (RDBMS) so that a customer can provision n clusters. Further the customer should be able to provision n schemas on top of one of these clusters and also do bindings. This would lead to the following steps:
Details
Extend the Service Instance object with a parent<->child relationship of Service Instance.
Parent reference
To reference the parent the instance
guid
is used. OSB won't be able to validate it further and has to trust the platform for a valid reference (in terms of accessibility).Proposal
Workflow - Create Service with child and existing parent
cf create-service ServiceA PlanA service-instance-a
cf create-service ServiceB PlanB service-instance-b -c '{"parentReference": "service-instance-a-guid"}'
Deprecated Workflows (as of 12th of March 2018)
The following workflows are deprecated because
parentAlias
has been declined.Workflow - Create Service with child and non-existing parent
cf create-service ServiceB PlanB service-instance-b -c '{"parentAlias": "service-instance-a"}'
cf create-service ServiceA PlanA service-instance-a -c '{"alias": "service-instance-a"}'
Worflow - parentAlias validation
cf create-service ServiceA PlanA service-instance-a -c '{"alias": "service-instance-a"}'
cf create-service ServiceB PlanB service-instance-b -c '{"parentAlias": "service-instance-a"}'
parentAlias
is validated if the the child is in the same Context as the parent instance(Optional) further this validation could also be supported by the
Schema Object
Links
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: