Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
+1 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
Hi Sameera, Pradeep, +1, but X should probably be a name of a derivative/allotrope of Carbon (like Diamond or Graphite) which makes our code names more meaningful. I really like the idea of having two-levels of dependencies and orbits very much, which simplifies the effort of doing a carbon release and sticking to that. Carbon must be just like the Linux kernel, and it can have its own release schedule. Please also note that carbon should continue to have a concept of service-stubs which can be reused by other components, and should also have an integration area. Thanks, Senaka. On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Pradeep Fernando wrote: > +1 > > ___ > Carbon-dev mailing list > Carbon-dev@wso2.org > http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev > > -- *Senaka Fernando* Product Manager - WSO2 Governance Registry; Associate 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 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
++1, for the execution On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Senaka Fernando wrote: > Hi Sameera, Pradeep, > > +1, but X should probably be a name of a derivative/allotrope of Carbon > (like Diamond or Graphite) which makes our code names more meaningful. > > I really like the idea of having two-levels of dependencies and orbits > very much, which simplifies the effort of doing a carbon release and > sticking to that. Carbon must be just like the Linux kernel, and it can > have its own release schedule. > > Please also note that carbon should continue to have a concept of > service-stubs which can be reused by other components, and should also have > an integration area. > > Thanks, > Senaka. > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Pradeep Fernando wrote: > >> +1 >> >> ___ >> Carbon-dev mailing list >> Carbon-dev@wso2.org >> http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev >> >> > > > -- > *Senaka Fernando* > Product Manager - WSO2 Governance Registry; > Associate 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 > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- Regards, Tharindu blog: http://mackiemathew.com/ M: +9459908 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
I think first we need to remove the dependencies and orbit from the carbon structure since they have nothing to do with carbon. Simply they produce a set of third party osgi bundles to be used with carbon. Same thing may be applied to service stubs since they only depend on the wsdl version. we can increment the service stubs version when the wsdl version or axis2 version changes (if required). for carbon we can have the structure you have suggested. If we think carbon components and features as independent entities, then they can have an independent truck branches etc .. Same thing can be done with products. Products can have its own trunk and branches and branch can always refer to released feature versions. But this model can lead to complications when installing other features to different products. thanks, Amila. On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Tharindu Mathew wrote: > ++1, for the execution > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Senaka Fernando wrote: > >> Hi Sameera, Pradeep, >> >> +1, but X should probably be a name of a derivative/allotrope of Carbon >> (like Diamond or Graphite) which makes our code names more meaningful. >> >> I really like the idea of having two-levels of dependencies and orbits >> very much, which simplifies the effort of doing a carbon release and >> sticking to that. Carbon must be just like the Linux kernel, and it can >> have its own release schedule. >> >> Please also note that carbon should continue to have a concept of >> service-stubs which can be reused by other components, and should also have >> an integration area. >> >> Thanks, >> Senaka. >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Pradeep Fernando wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> ___ >>> Carbon-dev mailing list >>> Carbon-dev@wso2.org >>> http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Senaka Fernando* >> Product Manager - WSO2 Governance Registry; >> Associate 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 >> architect...@wso2.org >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > > Tharindu > > blog: http://mackiemathew.com/ > M: +9459908 > > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- *Amila Suriarachchi* Software Architect WSO2 Inc. ; http://wso2.com lean . enterprise . middleware phone : +94 71 3082805 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > *Objective*: > Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment complete > Carbon platform code lies under > https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its own > problems. > > *Motivations*: > 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own > dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other > Carbon components, products. > 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well > tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. > 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, > because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo > drastic changes time to time. > > *Execution*: > Here is my proposal. > 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for > components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown > below. > > carbon > |--dependencies > |--orbits > |--core (core set of bundles.) > |--features (Carbon core features) > |--product (Carbon product) > > X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva > once mentioned this name. :) ) > |--dependencies > |--orbits > |--components > |--features > |--products > > 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like > above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and > restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. > > Please feel free to comment. > Are we going to keep the same carbon version to the features? if not how we going to handle the feature repose? currently feature repos are named with carbon versions. thanks, Amila. > > Thanks, > Sameera. > > -- > Sameera Jayasoma > Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon > > WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) > email: same...@wso2.com > blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- *Amila Suriarachchi* Software Architect WSO2 Inc. ; http://wso2.com lean . enterprise . middleware phone : +94 71 3082805 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
+1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. /sumedha On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > *Objective*: > Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment complete > Carbon platform code lies under > https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its own > problems. > > *Motivations*: > 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own > dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other > Carbon components, products. > 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well > tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. > 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, > because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo > drastic changes time to time. > > *Execution*: > Here is my proposal. > 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for > components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown > below. > > carbon > |--dependencies > |--orbits > |--core (core set of bundles.) > |--features (Carbon core features) > |--product (Carbon product) > > X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva > once mentioned this name. :) ) > |--dependencies > |--orbits > |--components > |--features > |--products > > 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like > above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and > restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. > > Please feel free to comment. > > Thanks, > Sameera. > > -- > Sameera Jayasoma > Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon > > WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) > email: same...@wso2.com > blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- /sumedha +94 773017743 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe wrote: > +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through > different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching > approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. > +1. That is what I try to say as well. We need to think all the uses which are working with current model and see how they work with new system. thanks, Amila. > > /sumedha > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > >> *Objective*: >> Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment >> complete Carbon platform code lies under >> https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its >> own problems. >> >> *Motivations*: >> 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own >> dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other >> Carbon components, products. >> 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well >> tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. >> 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, >> because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo >> drastic changes time to time. >> >> *Execution*: >> Here is my proposal. >> 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for >> components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown >> below. >> >> carbon >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--core (core set of bundles.) >> |--features (Carbon core features) >> |--product (Carbon product) >> >> X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva >> once mentioned this name. :) ) >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--components >> |--features >> |--products >> >> 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like >> above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and >> restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. >> >> Please feel free to comment. >> >> Thanks, >> Sameera. >> >> -- >> Sameera Jayasoma >> Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon >> >> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >> email: same...@wso2.com >> blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> >> ___ >> Architecture mailing list >> architect...@wso2.org >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >> >> > > > -- > /sumedha > +94 773017743 > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- *Amila Suriarachchi* Software Architect WSO2 Inc. ; http://wso2.com lean . enterprise . middleware phone : +94 71 3082805 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
I agree that the orbits project should not be a part of the Carbon or Carbon based products. Therefore we can make it a top level project, say carbon-orbits. But I am not sure whether we need to remove dependencies from the carbon svn project. It will complicate things. When we release Carbon core, we need to release only the dependencies of Carbon. Therefore we need to have a separation of dependencies. IMV, service-stubs are part of the project. And aslo they are still undergoing changes. Therefore I would consider keeping the service-stubs separately in each of the projects. Please comment, if you have different views. Here is revised svn structure based on the received comments. carbon-orbits carbon |--dependencies |--orbits (To wrap dependencies as orbit bundles. These cannot be added to the top level carbon-orbits project. ) |--service-stubs |--core (core set of bundles.) |--features (Carbon core features) |--product (Carbon product) X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva once mentioned this name. :) ) |--dependencies |--orbits (To wrap dependencies as orbit bundles. These cannot be added to the top level carbon-orbits project. ) |--service-stubs |--components |--features |--products Thanks, Sameera On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Amila Suriarachchi wrote: > I think first we need to remove the dependencies and orbit from the carbon > structure since they have nothing to do with carbon. Simply they produce a > set of > third party osgi bundles to be used with carbon. > > Same thing may be applied to service stubs since they only depend on the > wsdl version. we can increment the service stubs version when the wsdl > version or axis2 version changes (if required). > > for carbon we can have the structure you have suggested. > > If we think carbon components and features as independent entities, then > they can have an independent truck branches etc .. Same thing > can be done with products. Products can have its own trunk and branches > and branch can always refer to released feature versions. > > But this model can lead to complications when installing other features to > different products. > > thanks, > Amila. > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Tharindu Mathew wrote: > >> ++1, for the execution >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Senaka Fernando wrote: >> >>> Hi Sameera, Pradeep, >>> >>> +1, but X should probably be a name of a derivative/allotrope of Carbon >>> (like Diamond or Graphite) which makes our code names more meaningful. >>> >>> I really like the idea of having two-levels of dependencies and orbits >>> very much, which simplifies the effort of doing a carbon release and >>> sticking to that. Carbon must be just like the Linux kernel, and it can >>> have its own release schedule. >>> >>> Please also note that carbon should continue to have a concept of >>> service-stubs which can be reused by other components, and should also have >>> an integration area. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Senaka. >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Pradeep Fernando wrote: >>> +1 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Senaka Fernando* >>> Product Manager - WSO2 Governance Registry; >>> Associate 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 >>> architect...@wso2.org >>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Tharindu >> >> blog: http://mackiemathew.com/ >> M: +9459908 >> >> >> ___ >> Architecture mailing list >> architect...@wso2.org >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >> >> > > > -- > *Amila Suriarachchi* > > Software Architect > WSO2 Inc. ; http://wso2.com > lean . enterprise . middleware > > phone : +94 71 3082805 > > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- Sameera Jayasoma Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) email: same...@wso2.com blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org Lean . Enterprise . Middleware ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Amila Suriarachchi wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > >> *Objective*: >> Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment >> complete Carbon platform code lies under >> https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its >> own problems. >> >> *Motivations*: >> 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own >> dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other >> Carbon components, products. >> 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well >> tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. >> 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, >> because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo >> drastic changes time to time. >> >> *Execution*: >> Here is my proposal. >> 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for >> components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown >> below. >> >> carbon >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--core (core set of bundles.) >> |--features (Carbon core features) >> |--product (Carbon product) >> >> X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva >> once mentioned this name. :) ) >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--components >> |--features >> |--products >> >> 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like >> above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and >> restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. >> >> Please feel free to comment. >> > > Are we going to keep the same carbon version to the features? if not how > we going to handle the feature repose? currently feature repos are named > with carbon versions. > Initial plan is to keep the same Carbon version across the whole platform. But we can have different versions for Carbon components/features independently from the Carbon version. Thanks, Sameera. > > thanks, > Amila. > > >> >> Thanks, >> Sameera. >> >> -- >> Sameera Jayasoma >> Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon >> >> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >> email: same...@wso2.com >> blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> >> ___ >> Architecture mailing list >> architect...@wso2.org >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >> >> > > > -- > *Amila Suriarachchi* > > Software Architect > WSO2 Inc. ; http://wso2.com > lean . enterprise . middleware > > phone : +94 71 3082805 > > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- Sameera Jayasoma Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) email: same...@wso2.com blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org Lean . Enterprise . Middleware ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > I agree that the orbits project should not be a part of the Carbon or > Carbon based products. Therefore we can make it a top level project, say > carbon-orbits. But I am not sure whether we need to remove dependencies > from the carbon svn project. It will complicate things. When we release > Carbon core, we need to release only the dependencies of Carbon. Therefore > we need to have a separation of dependencies. What I thought was not the dependencies as a whole. we don't need a new dependency version for each carbon core release. Lets say we did carbon 3.0.0 on axis2 1.6.1.wso2v1. Then we can either do the carbon 4.0.0 on axis2 1.6.1.wsov1 or v2. in the former case we don't need to do any axis2 release. But for latter case we can only release axis2 1.6.1.wso2v2. Same way for the components. if the dependency is not part of carbon core, then new release version can be done and release the component. if the dependencies you have mentioned only pointing to the such newer versions both do the same. thanks, Amila. > IMV, service-stubs are part of the project. And aslo they are still > undergoing changes. Therefore I would consider keeping the service-stubs > separately in each of the projects. Please comment, if you have different > views. > > Here is revised svn structure based on the received comments. > > carbon-orbits > > carbon > |--dependencies >|--orbits (To wrap dependencies as orbit bundles. These cannot be > added to the top level carbon-orbits project. ) > |--service-stubs > |--core (core set of bundles.) > |--features (Carbon core features) > |--product (Carbon product) > > X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva > once mentioned this name. :) ) > |--dependencies >|--orbits (To wrap dependencies as orbit bundles. These cannot be > added to the top level carbon-orbits project. ) > |--service-stubs > |--components > |--features > |--products > > > Thanks, > Sameera > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Amila Suriarachchi wrote: > >> I think first we need to remove the dependencies and orbit from the >> carbon structure since they have nothing to do with carbon. Simply they >> produce a set of >> third party osgi bundles to be used with carbon. >> >> Same thing may be applied to service stubs since they only depend on the >> wsdl version. we can increment the service stubs version when the wsdl >> version or axis2 version changes (if required). >> >> for carbon we can have the structure you have suggested. >> >> If we think carbon components and features as independent entities, then >> they can have an independent truck branches etc .. Same thing >> can be done with products. Products can have its own trunk and branches >> and branch can always refer to released feature versions. >> >> But this model can lead to complications when installing other features >> to different products. >> >> thanks, >> Amila. >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Tharindu Mathew wrote: >> >>> ++1, for the execution >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Senaka Fernando wrote: >>> Hi Sameera, Pradeep, +1, but X should probably be a name of a derivative/allotrope of Carbon (like Diamond or Graphite) which makes our code names more meaningful. I really like the idea of having two-levels of dependencies and orbits very much, which simplifies the effort of doing a carbon release and sticking to that. Carbon must be just like the Linux kernel, and it can have its own release schedule. Please also note that carbon should continue to have a concept of service-stubs which can be reused by other components, and should also have an integration area. Thanks, Senaka. On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Pradeep Fernando wrote: > +1 > > ___ > Carbon-dev mailing list > Carbon-dev@wso2.org > http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev > > -- *Senaka Fernando* Product Manager - WSO2 Governance Registry; Associate 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 architect...@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Tharindu >>> >>> blog: http://mackiemathew.com/ >>> M: +9459908 >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Architecture mailing list >>> architect...@wso2.org >>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Amila Su
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
Hi all, +1. When installing other features to different products, it should mention the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the intersection of products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go ahead with minimizing carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an offline chat with Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. thanks, dimuthu On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe wrote: > +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through > different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching > approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. > > /sumedha > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > >> *Objective*: >> Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment >> complete Carbon platform code lies under >> https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its >> own problems. >> >> *Motivations*: >> 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own >> dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other >> Carbon components, products. >> 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well >> tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. >> 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, >> because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo >> drastic changes time to time. >> >> *Execution*: >> Here is my proposal. >> 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for >> components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown >> below. >> >> carbon >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--core (core set of bundles.) >> |--features (Carbon core features) >> |--product (Carbon product) >> >> X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva >> once mentioned this name. :) ) >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--components >> |--features >> |--products >> >> 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like >> above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and >> restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. >> >> Please feel free to comment. >> >> Thanks, >> Sameera. >> >> -- >> Sameera Jayasoma >> Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon >> >> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >> email: same...@wso2.com >> blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> >> ___ >> Architecture mailing list >> architect...@wso2.org >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >> >> > > > -- > /sumedha > +94 773017743 > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- Dimuthu Leelarathne Technical Lead WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) email: dimut...@wso2.com Lean . Enterprise . Middleware ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
+1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's suggestion of making the orbit stuff another TLP. I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. Sanjiva. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne wrote: > Hi all, > > +1. > > When installing other features to different products, it should mention > the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the intersection of > products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go ahead with minimizing > carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an offline chat with > Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. > > thanks, > dimuthu > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe wrote: > >> +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through >> different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching >> approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. >> >> /sumedha >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: >> >>> *Objective*: >>> Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment >>> complete Carbon platform code lies under >>> https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its >>> own problems. >>> >>> *Motivations*: >>> 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own >>> dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other >>> Carbon components, products. >>> 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well >>> tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. >>> 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, >>> because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo >>> drastic changes time to time. >>> >>> *Execution*: >>> Here is my proposal. >>> 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for >>> components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown >>> below. >>> >>> carbon >>> |--dependencies >>> |--orbits >>> |--core (core set of bundles.) >>> |--features (Carbon core features) >>> |--product (Carbon product) >>> >>> X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva >>> once mentioned this name. :) ) >>> |--dependencies >>> |--orbits >>> |--components >>> |--features >>> |--products >>> >>> 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like >>> above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and >>> restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. >>> >>> Please feel free to comment. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sameera. >>> >>> -- >>> Sameera Jayasoma >>> Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon >>> >>> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >>> email: same...@wso2.com >>> blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org >>> >>> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >>> >>> ___ >>> Architecture mailing list >>> architect...@wso2.org >>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> /sumedha >> +94 773017743 >> >> ___ >> Architecture mailing list >> architect...@wso2.org >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >> >> > > > -- > Dimuthu Leelarathne > Technical Lead > > WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) > email: dimut...@wso2.com > > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > > ___ > Carbon-dev mailing list > Carbon-dev@wso2.org > http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev > > -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 650 265 8311 blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ Lean . Enterprise . Middleware ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
As per Amila's suggestion, we can also start moving products also similar to carbon... have their own trunk and branch... IMO, products should own which feature version they want to depend on. They should only move to a new feature if they need a fix/ improvement in the new version. This would mean that Carbon and Feature versions are independent. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's suggestion > of making the orbit stuff another TLP. > > I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. > > Sanjiva. > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> +1. >> >> When installing other features to different products, it should mention >> the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the intersection of >> products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go ahead with minimizing >> carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an offline chat with >> Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. >> >> thanks, >> dimuthu >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe wrote: >> >>> +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through >>> different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching >>> approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. >>> >>> /sumedha >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: >>> *Objective*: Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment complete Carbon platform code lies under https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its own problems. *Motivations*: 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other Carbon components, products. 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo drastic changes time to time. *Execution*: Here is my proposal. 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown below. carbon |--dependencies |--orbits |--core (core set of bundles.) |--features (Carbon core features) |--product (Carbon product) X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva once mentioned this name. :) ) |--dependencies |--orbits |--components |--features |--products 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. Please feel free to comment. Thanks, Sameera. -- Sameera Jayasoma Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) email: same...@wso2.com blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org Lean . Enterprise . Middleware ___ Architecture mailing list architect...@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >>> -- >>> /sumedha >>> +94 773017743 >>> >>> ___ >>> Architecture mailing list >>> architect...@wso2.org >>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dimuthu Leelarathne >> Technical Lead >> >> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >> email: dimut...@wso2.com >> >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> >> >> ___ >> Carbon-dev mailing list >> Carbon-dev@wso2.org >> http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev >> >> > > > -- > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ > email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 > 650 265 8311 > blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ > > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- Regards, Tharindu blog: http://mackiemathew.com/ M: +9459908 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
Totally absolutely -1 :). If you want to take each FEATURE and make it into a TLP I'm totally +1, however not a product. That would go against our recent attempts at (re-)organizing around technology areas. A "product" for us is simply a pre-packed and tested set of features and I want to go in the opposite direction: Automate product creation to the point where everything from docs to testing is automated. Then the manual work goes towards features and products are simply distribution vehicles. Sanjiva. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Tharindu Mathew wrote: > As per Amila's suggestion, we can also start moving products also similar > to carbon... have their own trunk and branch... > > IMO, products should own which feature version they want to depend on. > They should only move to a new feature if they need a fix/ improvement in > the new version. > > This would mean that Carbon and Feature versions are independent. > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > >> +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's suggestion >> of making the orbit stuff another TLP. >> >> I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. >> >> Sanjiva. >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> +1. >>> >>> When installing other features to different products, it should mention >>> the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the intersection of >>> products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go ahead with minimizing >>> carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an offline chat with >>> Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. >>> >>> thanks, >>> dimuthu >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe wrote: >>> +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. /sumedha On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > *Objective*: > Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment > complete Carbon platform code lies under > https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its > own problems. > > *Motivations*: > 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own > dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other > Carbon components, products. > 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, > well tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. > 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, > because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo > drastic changes time to time. > > *Execution*: > Here is my proposal. > 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for > components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown > below. > > carbon > |--dependencies > |--orbits > |--core (core set of bundles.) > |--features (Carbon core features) > |--product (Carbon product) > > X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva > once mentioned this name. :) ) > |--dependencies > |--orbits > |--components > |--features > |--products > > 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like > above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and > restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. > > Please feel free to comment. > > Thanks, > Sameera. > > -- > Sameera Jayasoma > Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon > > WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) > email: same...@wso2.com > blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- /sumedha +94 773017743 ___ Architecture mailing list architect...@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dimuthu Leelarathne >>> Technical Lead >>> >>> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >>> email: dimut...@wso2.com >>> >>> >>> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Carbon-dev mailing list >>> Carbon-dev@wso2.org >>> http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. >> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ >> email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 >> 650 265 8311 >> blog: http://sa
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
For this approach to properly work, we need to have proper package export & import versions. Otherwise, say for example, two different features require different versions of a particular bundle, then these features may not be able to coexist. When upgrading a versions of an orbit dependency, the should be a way to track all its dependant & change them accordingly to avoid ending up with unnecessary jar duplication. -- Afkham Azeez Sent from my phone On Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" wrote: > +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's suggestion > of making the orbit stuff another TLP. > > I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. > > Sanjiva. > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> +1. >> >> When installing other features to different products, it should mention >> the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the intersection of >> products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go ahead with minimizing >> carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an offline chat with >> Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. >> >> thanks, >> dimuthu >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe wrote: >> >>> +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through >>> different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching >>> approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. >>> >>> /sumedha >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: >>> *Objective*: Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment complete Carbon platform code lies under https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its own problems. *Motivations*: 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other Carbon components, products. 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo drastic changes time to time. *Execution*: Here is my proposal. 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown below. carbon |--dependencies |--orbits |--core (core set of bundles.) |--features (Carbon core features) |--product (Carbon product) X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva once mentioned this name. :) ) |--dependencies |--orbits |--components |--features |--products 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. Please feel free to comment. Thanks, Sameera. -- Sameera Jayasoma Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) email: same...@wso2.com blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org Lean . Enterprise . Middleware ___ Architecture mailing list architect...@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >>> -- >>> /sumedha >>> +94 773017743 >>> >>> ___ >>> Architecture mailing list >>> architect...@wso2.org >>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dimuthu Leelarathne >> Technical Lead >> >> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >> email: dimut...@wso2.com >> >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> >> >> ___ >> Carbon-dev mailing list >> Carbon-dev@wso2.org >> http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev >> >> > > > -- > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ > email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 > 650 265 8311 > blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
Hi On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: > For this approach to properly work, we need to have proper package export > & import versions. Otherwise, say for example, two different features > require different versions of a particular bundle, then these features may > not be able to coexist. When upgrading a versions of an orbit dependency, > the should be a way to track all its dependant & change them accordingly > to avoid ending up with unnecessary jar duplication. > +1, we need to concentrate on imports and exports more than we are doing now. Its a nightmare to find issues when an orbit bundle is updated not knowingly. Regards, /Nuwan > -- > Afkham Azeez > Sent from my phone > On Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" wrote: > >> +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's suggestion >> of making the orbit stuff another TLP. >> >> I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. >> >> Sanjiva. >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> +1. >>> >>> When installing other features to different products, it should mention >>> the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the intersection of >>> products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go ahead with minimizing >>> carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an offline chat with >>> Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. >>> >>> thanks, >>> dimuthu >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe wrote: >>> +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. /sumedha On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > *Objective*: > Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment > complete Carbon platform code lies under > https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its > own problems. > > *Motivations*: > 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own > dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other > Carbon components, products. > 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, > well tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. > 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, > because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo > drastic changes time to time. > > *Execution*: > Here is my proposal. > 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for > components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown > below. > > carbon > |--dependencies > |--orbits > |--core (core set of bundles.) > |--features (Carbon core features) > |--product (Carbon product) > > X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva > once mentioned this name. :) ) > |--dependencies > |--orbits > |--components > |--features > |--products > > 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like > above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and > restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. > > Please feel free to comment. > > Thanks, > Sameera. > > -- > Sameera Jayasoma > Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon > > WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) > email: same...@wso2.com > blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- /sumedha +94 773017743 ___ Architecture mailing list architect...@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dimuthu Leelarathne >>> Technical Lead >>> >>> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >>> email: dimut...@wso2.com >>> >>> >>> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Carbon-dev mailing list >>> Carbon-dev@wso2.org >>> http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. >> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ >> email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 >> 650 265 8311 >> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> >> ___ >> Architecture mailing list >> architect...@wso2.org >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
Hi Sameera, Are we going to do this change for Carbon 4.0.0? Had an offline chat with Samisa on this. Given the amount of work and time needed to complete and stabilize this, we just thought it's good to push this to 5.0.0. What do you think? Thanks, ~Isuru On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Nuwan Bandara wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: > >> For this approach to properly work, we need to have proper package export >> & import versions. Otherwise, say for example, two different features >> require different versions of a particular bundle, then these features may >> not be able to coexist. When upgrading a versions of an orbit dependency, >> the should be a way to track all its dependant & change them accordingly >> to avoid ending up with unnecessary jar duplication. >> > > +1, we need to concentrate on imports and exports more than we are doing > now. Its a nightmare to find issues when an orbit bundle is updated not > knowingly. > > Regards, > /Nuwan > > >> -- >> Afkham Azeez >> Sent from my phone >> On Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" wrote: >> >>> +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's suggestion >>> of making the orbit stuff another TLP. >>> >>> I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. >>> >>> Sanjiva. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne >>> wrote: >>> Hi all, +1. When installing other features to different products, it should mention the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the intersection of products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go ahead with minimizing carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an offline chat with Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. thanks, dimuthu On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe wrote: > +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through > different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching > approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. > > /sumedha > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > >> *Objective*: >> Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment >> complete Carbon platform code lies under >> https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has >> its own problems. >> >> *Motivations*: >> 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own >> dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of >> other >> Carbon components, products. >> 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, >> well tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. >> 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, >> because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo >> drastic changes time to time. >> >> *Execution*: >> Here is my proposal. >> 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for >> components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown >> below. >> >> carbon >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--core (core set of bundles.) >> |--features (Carbon core features) >> |--product (Carbon product) >> >> X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. >> Sanjiva once mentioned this name. :) ) >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--components >> |--features >> |--products >> >> 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like >> above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and >> restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. >> >> Please feel free to comment. >> >> Thanks, >> Sameera. >> >> -- >> Sameera Jayasoma >> Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon >> >> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >> email: same...@wso2.com >> blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> >> ___ >> Architecture mailing list >> architect...@wso2.org >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >> >> > > > -- > /sumedha > +94 773017743 > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- Dimuthu Leelarathne Technical Lead WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) email: dimut...@wso2.com Lean . Enterprise . Middleware ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-b
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Isuru Suriarachchi wrote: > Hi Sameera, > > Are we going to do this change for Carbon 4.0.0? Had an offline chat with > Samisa on this. Given the amount of work and time needed to complete and > stabilize this, we just thought it's good to push this to 5.0.0. What do > you think? > +1 for deferring this, given that we have many other drastic changes going into 4.0.0. However, we better get started on the 'kernelization' of carbon. This can be easily done by moving many of the modules in the current carbon-core into components, and changing the product p2-profiles to pick up these components. Once we have that, we can gradually move into the proposed SVN structure. > > Thanks, > ~Isuru > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Nuwan Bandara wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: >> >>> For this approach to properly work, we need to have proper package >>> export & import versions. Otherwise, say for example, two different >>> features require different versions of a particular bundle, then these >>> features may not be able to coexist. When upgrading a versions of an orbit >>> dependency, the should be a way to track all its dependant & change them >>> accordingly to avoid ending up with unnecessary jar duplication. >>> >> >> +1, we need to concentrate on imports and exports more than we are doing >> now. Its a nightmare to find issues when an orbit bundle is updated not >> knowingly. >> >> Regards, >> /Nuwan >> >> >>> -- >>> Afkham Azeez >>> Sent from my phone >>> On Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" wrote: >>> +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's suggestion of making the orbit stuff another TLP. I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. Sanjiva. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne wrote: > Hi all, > > +1. > > When installing other features to different products, it should > mention the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the > intersection of products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go > ahead > with minimizing carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an > offline > chat with Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. > > thanks, > dimuthu > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe > wrote: > >> +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running >> through different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for >> branching approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms >> of >> time. >> >> /sumedha >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: >> >>> *Objective*: >>> Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment >>> complete Carbon platform code lies under >>> https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has >>> its own problems. >>> >>> *Motivations*: >>> 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its >>> own dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of >>> other Carbon components, products. >>> 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, >>> well tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. >>> 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, >>> because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might >>> undergo >>> drastic changes time to time. >>> >>> *Execution*: >>> Here is my proposal. >>> 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for >>> components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is >>> shown >>> below. >>> >>> carbon >>> |--dependencies >>> |--orbits >>> |--core (core set of bundles.) >>> |--features (Carbon core features) >>> |--product (Carbon product) >>> >>> X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. >>> Sanjiva once mentioned this name. :) ) >>> |--dependencies >>> |--orbits >>> |--components >>> |--features >>> |--products >>> >>> 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like >>> above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and >>> restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. >>> >>> Please feel free to comment. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sameera. >>> >>> -- >>> Sameera Jayasoma >>> Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon >>> >>> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >>> email: same...@wso2.com >>> blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org >>> >>> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >>> >>> ___ >>> Architecture mailing list >>> architect...@wso2.org >>> https://mai
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
Hi Azeez/Isuru, We(Pradeep and myselft) already planned to perform this action during this weekend. I understand the complexities of the effort. According the plan, we were thinking of performing this in scratch area and stabilize the build. IMV, we better of doing this soon, because this is first step towards making Carbon Core a standalone product. My apologies for not executing this earlier. I was on leave. Thanks, Sameera. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Isuru Suriarachchi wrote: > >> Hi Sameera, >> >> Are we going to do this change for Carbon 4.0.0? Had an offline chat with >> Samisa on this. Given the amount of work and time needed to complete and >> stabilize this, we just thought it's good to push this to 5.0.0. What do >> you think? >> > > +1 for deferring this, given that we have many other drastic changes going > into 4.0.0. However, we better get started on the 'kernelization' of > carbon. This can be easily done by moving many of the modules in the > current carbon-core into components, and changing the product p2-profiles > to pick up these components. Once we have that, we can gradually move into > the proposed SVN structure. > > >> >> Thanks, >> ~Isuru >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Nuwan Bandara wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: >>> For this approach to properly work, we need to have proper package export & import versions. Otherwise, say for example, two different features require different versions of a particular bundle, then these features may not be able to coexist. When upgrading a versions of an orbit dependency, the should be a way to track all its dependant & change them accordingly to avoid ending up with unnecessary jar duplication. >>> >>> +1, we need to concentrate on imports and exports more than we are doing >>> now. Its a nightmare to find issues when an orbit bundle is updated not >>> knowingly. >>> >>> Regards, >>> /Nuwan >>> >>> -- Afkham Azeez Sent from my phone On Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" wrote: > +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's > suggestion of making the orbit stuff another TLP. > > I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. > > Sanjiva. > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> +1. >> >> When installing other features to different products, it should >> mention the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the >> intersection of products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go >> ahead >> with minimizing carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an >> offline >> chat with Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. >> >> thanks, >> dimuthu >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running >>> through different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for >>> branching approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in >>> terms of >>> time. >>> >>> /sumedha >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma >>> wrote: >>> *Objective*: Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment complete Carbon platform code lies under https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its own problems. *Motivations*: 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other Carbon components, products. 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo drastic changes time to time. *Execution*: Here is my proposal. 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown below. carbon |--dependencies |--orbits |--core (core set of bundles.) |--features (Carbon core features) |--product (Carbon product) X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva once mentioned this name. :) ) |--dependencies |--orbits |--components |--features |--products 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
Azeez and myself had an offline discussion on this. We will initially perform this on a scratch area and test all the builds. If they are okay, we will make this change live. This requires changes to the existing build plans. Thanks, Sameera. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > Hi Azeez/Isuru, > > We(Pradeep and myselft) already planned to perform this action during this > weekend. I understand the complexities of the effort. According the plan, > we were thinking of performing this in scratch area and stabilize the > build. > > IMV, we better of doing this soon, because this is first step towards > making Carbon Core a standalone product. > > My apologies for not executing this earlier. I was on leave. > > Thanks, > Sameera. > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Isuru Suriarachchi wrote: >> >>> Hi Sameera, >>> >>> Are we going to do this change for Carbon 4.0.0? Had an offline chat >>> with Samisa on this. Given the amount of work and time needed to complete >>> and stabilize this, we just thought it's good to push this to 5.0.0. What >>> do you think? >>> >> >> +1 for deferring this, given that we have many other drastic changes >> going into 4.0.0. However, we better get started on the 'kernelization' of >> carbon. This can be easily done by moving many of the modules in the >> current carbon-core into components, and changing the product p2-profiles >> to pick up these components. Once we have that, we can gradually move into >> the proposed SVN structure. >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ~Isuru >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Nuwan Bandara wrote: >>> Hi On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: > For this approach to properly work, we need to have proper package > export & import versions. Otherwise, say for example, two different > features require different versions of a particular bundle, then these > features may not be able to coexist. When upgrading a versions of an orbit > dependency, the should be a way to track all its dependant & change them > accordingly to avoid ending up with unnecessary jar duplication. > +1, we need to concentrate on imports and exports more than we are doing now. Its a nightmare to find issues when an orbit bundle is updated not knowingly. Regards, /Nuwan > -- > Afkham Azeez > Sent from my phone > On Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" > wrote: > >> +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's >> suggestion of making the orbit stuff another TLP. >> >> I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. >> >> Sanjiva. >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne < >> dimut...@wso2.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> +1. >>> >>> When installing other features to different products, it should >>> mention the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the >>> intersection of products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go >>> ahead >>> with minimizing carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an >>> offline >>> chat with Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. >>> >>> thanks, >>> dimuthu >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe >> > wrote: >>> +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running through different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did for branching approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in terms of time. /sumedha On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > *Objective*: > Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment > complete Carbon platform code lies under > https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has > its own problems. > > *Motivations*: > 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its > own dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently > of > other Carbon components, products. > 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a > stable, well tested and released version of Carbon instead of the > Carbon > trunk. > 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based > products, because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which > might > undergo drastic changes time to time. > > *Execution*: > Here is my proposal. > 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for > components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is > shown > below. >
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > Azeez and myself had an offline discussion on this. We > will initially perform this on a scratch area and test all the builds. If > they are okay, we will make this change live. This requires changes to the > existing build plans. Trunk should be frozen until the scratch is stabilized. Isn't it? Otherwise the commits should be applied again into the restructured svn. Can we get this done including the Tomcat OSGification by the end of next week? If so, +1 for the plan. Thanks, ~Isuru > > Thanks, > Sameera. > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > >> Hi Azeez/Isuru, >> >> We(Pradeep and myselft) already planned to perform this action during >> this weekend. I understand the complexities of the effort. According the >> plan, we were thinking of performing this in scratch area and stabilize the >> build. >> >> IMV, we better of doing this soon, because this is first step towards >> making Carbon Core a standalone product. >> >> My apologies for not executing this earlier. I was on leave. >> >> Thanks, >> Sameera. >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Isuru Suriarachchi wrote: >>> Hi Sameera, Are we going to do this change for Carbon 4.0.0? Had an offline chat with Samisa on this. Given the amount of work and time needed to complete and stabilize this, we just thought it's good to push this to 5.0.0. What do you think? >>> >>> +1 for deferring this, given that we have many other drastic changes >>> going into 4.0.0. However, we better get started on the 'kernelization' of >>> carbon. This can be easily done by moving many of the modules in the >>> current carbon-core into components, and changing the product p2-profiles >>> to pick up these components. Once we have that, we can gradually move into >>> the proposed SVN structure. >>> >>> Thanks, ~Isuru On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Nuwan Bandara wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: > >> For this approach to properly work, we need to have proper package >> export & import versions. Otherwise, say for example, two different >> features require different versions of a particular bundle, then these >> features may not be able to coexist. When upgrading a versions of an >> orbit >> dependency, the should be a way to track all its dependant & change them >> accordingly to avoid ending up with unnecessary jar duplication. >> > > +1, we need to concentrate on imports and exports more than we are > doing now. Its a nightmare to find issues when an orbit bundle is updated > not knowingly. > > Regards, > /Nuwan > > >> -- >> Afkham Azeez >> Sent from my phone >> On Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's >>> suggestion of making the orbit stuff another TLP. >>> >>> I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. >>> >>> Sanjiva. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne < >>> dimut...@wso2.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, +1. When installing other features to different products, it should mention the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the intersection of products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go ahead with minimizing carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an offline chat with Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. thanks, dimuthu On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe < sume...@wso2.com> wrote: > +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running > through different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did > for > branching approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in > terms of > time. > > /sumedha > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma > wrote: > >> *Objective*: >> Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment >> complete Carbon platform code lies under >> https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure >> has its own problems. >> >> *Motivations*: >> 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its >> own dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released >> independently of >> other Carbon components, products. >> 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a >> stable, well tested and released version of Carbon instead of the >
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon
Do a PoC or dry run in scratch, figure out the issue, figure out how to make this work with Bamboo, repeat a few of these dry runs if necessary, freeze the trunk once ready, and then carry out the exercise in the trunk. We should understand that the WSO2 SVN is a system in production, and we cannot afford to have long downtimes. You need to follow strict procedures while making major changes like this. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Isuru Suriarachchi wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > >> Azeez and myself had an offline discussion on this. We >> will initially perform this on a scratch area and test all the builds. If >> they are okay, we will make this change live. This requires changes to the >> existing build plans. > > > Trunk should be frozen until the scratch is stabilized. Isn't it? > Otherwise the commits should be applied again into the restructured svn. > Can we get this done including the Tomcat OSGification by the end of next > week? If so, +1 for the plan. > > Thanks, > ~Isuru > > >> >> Thanks, >> Sameera. >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: >> >>> Hi Azeez/Isuru, >>> >>> We(Pradeep and myselft) already planned to perform this action during >>> this weekend. I understand the complexities of the effort. According the >>> plan, we were thinking of performing this in scratch area and stabilize the >>> build. >>> >>> IMV, we better of doing this soon, because this is first step towards >>> making Carbon Core a standalone product. >>> >>> My apologies for not executing this earlier. I was on leave. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sameera. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Isuru Suriarachchi wrote: > Hi Sameera, > > Are we going to do this change for Carbon 4.0.0? Had an offline chat > with Samisa on this. Given the amount of work and time needed to complete > and stabilize this, we just thought it's good to push this to 5.0.0. What > do you think? > +1 for deferring this, given that we have many other drastic changes going into 4.0.0. However, we better get started on the 'kernelization' of carbon. This can be easily done by moving many of the modules in the current carbon-core into components, and changing the product p2-profiles to pick up these components. Once we have that, we can gradually move into the proposed SVN structure. > > Thanks, > ~Isuru > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Nuwan Bandara wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote: >> >>> For this approach to properly work, we need to have proper package >>> export & import versions. Otherwise, say for example, two different >>> features require different versions of a particular bundle, then these >>> features may not be able to coexist. When upgrading a versions of an >>> orbit >>> dependency, the should be a way to track all its dependant & change >>> them >>> accordingly to avoid ending up with unnecessary jar duplication. >>> >> >> +1, we need to concentrate on imports and exports more than we are >> doing now. Its a nightmare to find issues when an orbit bundle is updated >> not knowingly. >> >> Regards, >> /Nuwan >> >> >>> -- >>> Afkham Azeez >>> Sent from my phone >>> On Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" >>> wrote: >>> +1 for going ahead (without opinion on timing) and to Amila's suggestion of making the orbit stuff another TLP. I'm +1 for graphite per Senaka for X. Sanjiva. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne < dimut...@wso2.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > +1. > > When installing other features to different products, it should > mention the carbon core version. Currently, the carbon core is the > intersection of products, so there is no problem at all. But if we go > ahead > with minimizing carbon-core it can be tricky to handle. Just had an > offline > chat with Sameera, and according to him P2 handles it nicely. > > thanks, > dimuthu > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Sumedha Rubasinghe < > sume...@wso2.com> wrote: > >> +1 for the idea. B4 doing the actual change, how about running >> through different scenarios (like Amila mentioned) - like how we did >> for >> branching approach. Figuring out problems later would be costly in >> terms of >> time. >> >> /sumedha >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma < >> same...@wso2.com> wrote: >> >>> *Objective*: >>>
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon - Progress Update
Hi All, The dependencies are now split into carbon dependencies[1] and graphite dependencies[2] and related orbits are taken inside them. When considering dependencies/transports; carbon only has dependencies to axis2-transport-base, axis2-transport-jms and axis2-json. Since these artifacts are built inside transports/modules, the whole transports dependency project has been moved into carbon/dependencies in the new svn structure at the moment. There are several other modules inside transports which are not needed for carbon AFAIU. Can we split transports project so that only the carbon dependency transports modules are taken inside carbon/dependencies and the rest are moved to graphite/dependencies? WDYT? [1] https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/scratch/carbon-svn-re-org/dependencies/ [2] https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/scratch/graphite/dependencies/ Thanks, Dileepa On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > Hi Devs, > > We(Chethiya, Dileepa, Pradeep and myself) are working on this at the > moment. As per the discussion we are doing all these changes on a scratch > area[1][2]. Once this is stable, we will migrate these changes the trunk. > > Task Distribution. > > 1) Cleanup the dependencies project. Identify the dependency projects > which should go to carbon and graphite. Make orbit projects for those > dependency projects if necessary (Dileepa) > 2) Cleanup the orbits project. Graduating the released orbit projects. > Coming up with a top level project for carbon-orbits.(Chethiya) > 3) Cleanup the core/service-stubs projects. (Pradeep) > 4) Cleanup the component/features/products (Sameera) > > Thanks, > Sameera. > > [1] https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/scratch/carbon-svn-re-org > [2] https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/scratch/graphite > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > >> *Objective*: >> Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment >> complete Carbon platform code lies under >> https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its >> own problems. >> >> *Motivations*: >> 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own >> dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other >> Carbon components, products. >> 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well >> tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. >> 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, >> because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo >> drastic changes time to time. >> >> *Execution*: >> Here is my proposal. >> 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for >> components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown >> below. >> >> carbon >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--core (core set of bundles.) >> |--features (Carbon core features) >> |--product (Carbon product) >> >> X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva >> once mentioned this name. :) ) >> |--dependencies >> |--orbits >> |--components >> |--features >> |--products >> >> 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like >> above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and >> restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. >> >> Please feel free to comment. >> >> Thanks, >> Sameera. >> >> -- >> Sameera Jayasoma >> Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon >> >> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >> email: same...@wso2.com >> blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> > > > > -- > Sameera Jayasoma > Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon > > WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) > email: same...@wso2.com > blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > ___ > Architecture mailing list > architect...@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- Dileepa Jayakody, Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc. Lean . Enterprise . Middleware Mobile : +94777-857616 ___ Carbon-dev mailing list Carbon-dev@wso2.org http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
Re: [Carbon-dev] [Architecture] [Proposal] Restructuring the SVN repository of Carbon - Progress Update
Hi, In the attached excel file there is the list of orbits at [1]. That list indicates the orbits needed to be graduated and the orbits needed to be version upgraded. It's important to note that when someone is doing a commit to an orbit, it's required to do a version upgrade of that orbit. [1] https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/orbit/ Thanks, - Chethiya On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Dileepa Jayakody wrote: > Hi All, > > The dependencies are now split into carbon dependencies[1] and graphite > dependencies[2] and related orbits are taken inside them. > > When considering dependencies/transports; carbon only has dependencies to > axis2-transport-base, axis2-transport-jms and axis2-json. > Since these artifacts are built inside transports/modules, the whole > transports dependency project has been moved into carbon/dependencies in > the new svn structure at the moment. > > There are several other modules inside transports which are not needed for > carbon AFAIU. Can we split transports project so that only the carbon > dependency transports modules are taken inside carbon/dependencies and the > rest are moved to graphite/dependencies? WDYT? > > [1] > https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/scratch/carbon-svn-re-org/dependencies/ > [2] https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/scratch/graphite/dependencies/ > > Thanks, > Dileepa > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: > >> Hi Devs, >> >> We(Chethiya, Dileepa, Pradeep and myself) are working on this at the >> moment. As per the discussion we are doing all these changes on a scratch >> area[1][2]. Once this is stable, we will migrate these changes the trunk. >> >> Task Distribution. >> >> 1) Cleanup the dependencies project. Identify the dependency projects >> which should go to carbon and graphite. Make orbit projects for those >> dependency projects if necessary (Dileepa) >> > 2) Cleanup the orbits project. Graduating the released orbit projects. >> Coming up with a top level project for carbon-orbits.(Chethiya) >> 3) Cleanup the core/service-stubs projects. (Pradeep) >> 4) Cleanup the component/features/products (Sameera) >> >> Thanks, >> Sameera. >> >> [1] https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/scratch/carbon-svn-re-org >> [2] https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/scratch/graphite >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote: >> >>> *Objective*: >>> Make Carbon core a top level project in WSO2 trunk. At the moment >>> complete Carbon platform code lies under >>> https://svn.wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/carbon/. This structure has its >>> own problems. >>> >>> *Motivations*: >>> 1) Carbon core can be treated as a separate product which has its own >>> dependencies, orbit and Carbon core can be released independently of other >>> Carbon components, products. >>> 2) To ensure that the Carbon based products can depend on a stable, well >>> tested and released version of Carbon instead of the Carbon trunk. >>> 3) This will also ensure the stability of the Carbon based products, >>> because they are no longer depend on the Carbon trunk which might undergo >>> drastic changes time to time. >>> >>> *Execution*: >>> Here is my proposal. >>> 1) We need to create two top level directories for Carbon and for >>> components, features and Carbon based products. Sample structure is shown >>> below. >>> >>> carbon >>> |--dependencies >>> |--orbits >>> |--core (core set of bundles.) >>> |--features (Carbon core features) >>> |--product (Carbon product) >>> >>> X (TODO we need to come up with a name. How about silicon. Dr. Sanjiva >>> once mentioned this name. :) ) >>> |--dependencies >>> |--orbits >>> |--components >>> |--features >>> |--products >>> >>> 2) In order to change the existing svn structure to a structure like >>> above, we need to hold all the commits, say for two to three days and >>> restructure the SVN, test properly and release for commits. >>> >>> Please feel free to comment. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sameera. >>> >>> -- >>> Sameera Jayasoma >>> Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon >>> >>> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >>> email: same...@wso2.com >>> blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org >>> >>> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sameera Jayasoma >> Technical Lead and Product Manager, WSO2 Carbon >> >> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) >> email: same...@wso2.com >> blog: http://tech.jayasoma.org >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >> >> ___ >> Architecture mailing list >> architect...@wso2.org >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >> >> > > > -- > Dileepa Jayakody, > Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc. > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > Mobile : +94777-857616 > > > ___ > Carbon-dev mailing list > Carbon-dev@wso2.org > http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev > > -- Chethiya Abeysinghe Software Engineer; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ email: cheth...@wso2.com phone: +94 777334874 blog: chethiy
