Incorrect type for metadata fields in Get/Provision/Deprovision responses

[r6q]

I noticed in this PR a new metadata field (with labels/attributes) was added as per latest OSB specification.

Is there any reason for creating labels and attributes as a map[string]string instead of interface{} as per OSB specification where metadata labels and attributes fields are object type like parameters field (or at the least making it map[string]interface{} so integers and structs can be used as values) ?

Current implementation limits proper usage of labels and attributes of metadata in ServiceBroker implementation. I can add PR changing labels and attributes to interface{} (or map[string]interface{}) if you agree.

[cf-gitbot]

We have created an issue in Pivotal Tracker to manage this:

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/179237174

The labels on this github issue will be updated when the story is started.

[FelisiaM]

Hi @r6q

The spec defines both these fields as key-value fields, also in reality the platforms that defined the concepts and potentially make use of the labels and annotations define some more restrictions.

Both these concepts are taken from K8s labels and annotations and CF labels and annotations and both of them define labels as key-values of strings (that can also be queriable).
To keep in line with these current community definitions of labels and annotations I would be inclined to keep it as a map[string]string.

Thanks,
Felisia

[r6q]

Ok, thanks for your insight, let's leave it as <string, string>