Re: [Architecture] Future of Carbon UI Framework - Feedbacks needed !
Please refer my in-line comment On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Joseph Fonseka jos...@wso2.com wrote: Hi Didn't find tenant management on the list has it been handled separately ? It is listed under WSO2 IS configure related UI components. +1 for moving the UI out of the Kernal but what are the benefits we are targeting from this ? Thanks Jo -- *Pubudu Dissanayake* Software Engineer WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com lean.enterprise.middleware Mobile: 0775503304 ___ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
Re: [Architecture] Future of Carbon UI Framework - Feedbacks needed !
Please see my In-line comment. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Chan duli...@wso2.com wrote: +1 for building a light weight modern UI framework on top of carbon. Actually for EMM 1.1.0 release we are in the process of using jaggery-fiber [1] which aims to build a component sharing framework. I was thinking of building a feature's layer on top of the jaggery-fiber where we have the ability to dynamically drop a UI feature bundle. One of the flaws in building a unified framework is the user experience element. One of the things Carbon UI has got right is the uniformed UI. [1] - https://github.com/splinter/jaggery-fiber Excellent, Yes this address most of our concerns. Thanks for the resource I'll look in to this and get back to you. -- *Pubudu Dissanayake* Software Engineer WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com lean.enterprise.middleware Mobile: 0775503304 ___ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
Re: [Architecture] Future of Carbon UI Framework - Feedbacks needed !
+1 for building a light weight modern UI framework on top of carbon. Actually for EMM 1.1.0 release we are in the process of using jaggery-fiber [1] which aims to build a component sharing framework. I was thinking of building a feature's layer on top of the jaggery-fiber where we have the ability to dynamically drop a UI feature bundle. One of the flaws in building a unified framework is the user experience element. One of the things Carbon UI has got right is the uniformed UI. [1] - https://github.com/splinter/jaggery-fiber On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Nuwan Bandara nu...@wso2.com wrote: 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.comwrote: 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 -- Chan (Dulitha Wijewantha) Software Engineer - Mobile Development WSO2Mobile Lean.Enterprise.Mobileware * ~Email duli...@wso2.com duli...@wso2mobile.com* * ~Mobile +94712112165* * ~Website dulitha.me http://dulitha.me* * ~Twitter @dulitharw https://twitter.com/dulitharw* *~Github @dulichan https://github.com/dulichan* *~SO @chan http://stackoverflow.com/users/813471/chan* ___ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
Re: [Architecture] Future of Carbon UI Framework - Feedbacks needed !
Hi Didn't find tenant management on the list has it been handled separately ? +1 for moving the UI out of the Kernal but what are the benefits we are targeting from this ? Thanks Jo On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Chan duli...@wso2.com wrote: +1 for building a light weight modern UI framework on top of carbon. Actually for EMM 1.1.0 release we are in the process of using jaggery-fiber [1] which aims to build a component sharing framework. I was thinking of building a feature's layer on top of the jaggery-fiber where we have the ability to dynamically drop a UI feature bundle. One of the flaws in building a unified framework is the user experience element. One of the things Carbon UI has got right is the uniformed UI. [1] - https://github.com/splinter/jaggery-fiber On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Nuwan Bandara nu...@wso2.com wrote: 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.comwrote: 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 -- Chan (Dulitha Wijewantha) Software Engineer - Mobile Development WSO2Mobile Lean.Enterprise.Mobileware * ~Email duli...@wso2.com duli...@wso2mobile.com* * ~Mobile +94712112165 %2B94712112165* * ~Website dulitha.me http://dulitha.me* * ~Twitter @dulitharw https://twitter.com/dulitharw* *~Github @dulichan https://github.com/dulichan* *~SO @chan http://stackoverflow.com/users/813471/chan* ___
Re: [Architecture] Future of Carbon UI Framework - Feedbacks needed !
copied to Architecture mailing list On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Samisa Abeysinghe sam...@wso2.com wrote: Why is this thread private? Thanks, Samisa... Samisa Abeysinghe Vice President Delivery WSO2 Inc. http://wso2.com On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Pubudu Dissanayake pubu...@wso2.comwrote: 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 -- *Pubudu Dissanayake* Software Engineer WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com lean.enterprise.middleware Mobile: 0775503304 ___ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
Re: [Architecture] Future of Carbon UI Framework - Feedbacks needed !
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.comwrote: 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
