Kevin Minder

You are probably right. In fact this is exactly what I have done in a very naive way my project. I thought the idea might be interesting to be included...

Below are points that I think are important to address with the current proposal. 1. Seems like this should be at least 0.2->0.3 vs a "patch" 0.2.1->0.2.2. 2. Needs to...

More detailed questions and comments. 1. ComponentDefinition - Can we (at least optionally) share a "contract" between ComponentDefinitions? - At a minimum ComponentDefinitions will be hard to write and we...

WRT > 4. Needs to support Component isolation. Different users having access to different Components. What I really mean is that a ComponentDefinition needs to be namespace qualified. Just adding...

In spirit I agree with the suggestion above about making the syntax for references to type definitions consistent. However I'm not a fan of using `kind` as that has a...

There are a few important points that would need to be addressed in the governance model. As pointed out above it seems that an organization vs individual model is important...

I agree that the component level scope reference should override the application level scope reference. So yes I believe this would be backwards compatible. Do others have proposals for overriding...

I've come to the conclusion that there may be terminology issues here leading to confusion. My current understanding is that `WorkloadDefinition` as described in 0.2.2-WD is logically similar to `Component`...

It seems important to be able to filter on the workload's definitionRef (or something equivalent). This aligns with the initial comment from @resouer above. However the mixing of actual labels...

This type of standard trait might be sufficient for things that can be handled via static configuration. However we have found that many traits need to introspect the system to...