Thanks, DImuthu, for starting the code reorganization in PR 456. The changes are good and moving in the right direction. Pulling amie-specific functionality out of the core Custos logic is a good idea.
Can we align the package structure even more explicitly? My intention with issue #454 is to debate these high-level modules, and for the code to then reflect the architecture concepts. Can we change plugins to connectors? Plugins imply an extension framework and I see merit in that, but for Custos, I feel connectors will make it more obvious that these are integration modules that allow Custos to read from or write to external systems. Can we iterate on this structure: gateway/ (trying to be broader then portal so can put CLI and API SDK's there) core/ registry/ policy/ reconciler/ audit/ provisioning/ connectors/ deployments/ docs/ In the architecture and documentation, we can refer to core as the Custos Control Plane. The registry is the persistent data storage. We need to imply that sources of truth own domain facts and Custos does not replace them. For instance, XRAS remains the source of truth for allocations. Custos becomes the system of record for the composed operational state that connects these systems and will hold who should have access, what has been provisioned, and what action is needed. Custos will then let the managed system depend upon Custos to enact. Suresh > On May 9, 2026, at 6:59 PM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > We need a better articulation of the Custos project, its scope, and external > dependencies. I started an issue with a draft figure. Can you review and > provide feedback on the issue? Once we consolidate all feedback and address > it, let's reorganize the repo to reflect the modules, making it easier to use > and contribute to the project. > > https://github.com/apache/airavata-custos/issues/454 > > Cheers, > Suresh
