Hi Manu, Any example of how approach #2 becomes easier than approach #1 for migration?
My feeling is that effort-wise both are same and tooling/automation-wise #1 is much more straightforward compared to #2. And, if migration is going to be an issue that's mainly if it needs to be scripted and in such a situation #1 is much better since it is easy to validate AFAIU. Thanks, Senaka. On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Manuranga Perera <m...@wso2.com> wrote: > isn't updating form one version to another of same connector a common use > cause (as opposed to using multiple versions)? > if so naming it like "sdfc_2.0" would not be ideal for migration. > > -- > With regards, > *Manu*ranga Perera. > > > _______________________________________________ > Architecture mailing list > Architecture@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- * <http://us13.wso2con.com/> * * * *Senaka Fernando* Senior Technical Lead; WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com* Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://apache.org E-mail: senaka AT wso2.com **P: +1 408 754 7388; ext: 51736*; *M: +94 77 322 1818 Linked-In: http://linkedin.com/in/senakafernando *Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
