Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
|
I wasn't involved in the development of this format so @matthew-d-white @ccosborne should chime in but here is my take on this:
My understanding is that it is meant to define which version of the MOF the file is based on. I think a single version identifier could do but it's always good to have some form of identifier no matter what so I wouldn't just drop the whole thing.
This is meant to allow providing a description for non standard components, but such components are exceptional so I think we could make the description optional so that for all of the standard ones we can skip it.
I agree that this would be more consistent with license_path. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I'd like to discuss the YAML model structure. Currently, it follows the JSON format, but represented in YAML. For example, using the Amber model, it looks like this:
Questions:
frameworkkey and its key-value pairs?descriptionkey-value pair for each component necessary? It's included in the JSON format, but we may not need it in YAML.locationtocomponent_pathfor each component?Let me know your thoughts.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions