Hi All, I do understand that keeping the Kernal as light as possible is a good idea. +1 to keep the UI apart from the Kernal. However we need to think about the UI framework as well. Almost all our products have a pretty solid admin console, and some has user facing console (AM/ES/UES etc) these requirements need to be facilitated in the future too.
So I have few questions, - What is the proposal in this mail thread ? Are we going to completely forget about a unified UI framework and let the products build their own UIs ? IMO this is a bad idea at minimum the platform has to have one framework so that each products can build their own UIs for management and/or user interactions. - The kernel functionalities such as logging, feature management etc will not have a UI ? So this means it will be either by configuration or via a cli, in that case when its a hosted solution what is our plan ? we will have to build a UI in that case yeah ? (not for feature management maybe but for other utilities) - Right now the UI is quite solid compared to other ways of configuration, if we are getting rid of the UI for configuration we need to build a better way for configuration like user-management, data source creation, application / artifact deployment etc. - The impact will be huge if we try to move everything away from a UI. Right now almost all product functions depend on the UI, and IMO some functions actually need the UI. So having a unified UI framework will help each product to build their UI components, infact that was one of the great benefits of the Carbon UI despite all its limitations. So I think we still need a UI framework (a modern, flexible one for sure) the decision we have to make is whether to make it a part of the Kernal or not, and not about eliminating a UI framework. Regards, /Nuwan On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Pubudu Dissanayake <pubu...@wso2.com>wrote: > Hi folks, > > The idea behind this email is to describe Pros/Cons of Carbon UI framework > if we decide not to make this part of kernel. based on the previous > discussion regarding C5 UI framework, Internal research has been conducted > regarding usage of management console UI of each product. > > Mgt Console UI usage - > https://docs.google.com/a/wso2.com/document/d/1o73UcdmiGgTURnpasVuJ6ekslQGlttXdywKaJYh-Dz0/edit > > Following Pros/Cons were extracted according to the research results. > Here are some facts , > > Pros > > - Light weight kernel ( without UI framework ) > > Cons > > - At the moment ( Carbon 4.2.0 ) following functionalities shipped > with admin UI > - Deploying an artifact ( Development stuffs are removed from admin > UI) > - Seeing the statistics ( Service stats and system stats) > - User, role , permission management > - Registry UI related components > - WSO2 MB is heavily coupled with admin UI > > > It would be better if we can discuss these things and finalize decision > whether we need the management console (and hence framework), WDYT ? > > > -- > *Pubudu Dissanayake* > Software Engineer > WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com > lean.enterprise.middleware > Mobile: 0775503304 > -- *Thanks & Regards,* * Nuwan Bandara | Senior Technical Lead - Solutions Architecture, WSO2 Inc.+1 812.606.7390 <%2B1%20812.606.7390> | +1 650.745.4499 Ext 4210 <%2B1%20650.745.4499%20Ext%204210> | http://nuwanbando.com <http://nuwanbando.com> * <http://www.nuwanbando.com/>
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
