[+ arch@] Hi,
IMO, we have to go with separate artifacts, for the easiness of maintainability. for eg: if we have separate artifacts (say for projects and analyzes), - One can easily add and remove analyzes at any time from a project, just by adding/deleting the file corresponds to that artifact. - Since it doesn't require updating any existing files, that also eliminates the possibility of affecting (rather harming) existing projects/analyzes. - This also means, one corrupted analyzes (or project or any other 'module') would not affect other analyzes. Regards, Supun On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Nethaji Chandrasiri <neth...@wso2.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Since I'm working on deployable artifact model scenario I made a list [1] > of pros and cons of both the approaches I found so far. > > > https://docs.google.com/a/wso2.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lm5xSmXOG1dDEXGPOthI7nnsjwjKt-apwj77SjxB3Fg/edit?usp=sharing > > -- > *Nethaji Chandrasiri* > *Software Engineering* *Intern; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com > <http://wso2.com/>* > Mobile : +94 (0) 779171059 <%2B94%20%280%29%20778%20800570> > Email : neth...@wso2.com > -- *Supun Sethunga* Software Engineer WSO2, Inc. http://wso2.com/ lean | enterprise | middleware Mobile : +94 716546324
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
