On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Bhathiya Jayasekara
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Inosh Goonewardena
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Uvindra Dias Jayasinha > > wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback, some
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Anjana Fernando wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So we are starting on porting the earlier DAS specific functionality to
> C5. And with this, we are planning on not embedding the Spark server
> functionality to the primary binary itself, but rather run it
Hi Prabath,
Primary goal is to group the configurations but we can achieve isolations
with access control.
Let me describe with the diagrams.
With the current implementation we have individual SP configurations. And
we need to set all the configurations (Claim, authentication chain etc..)
in each
Thanks!
Few questions related to the certificate-based handler...
1. Why do we expect username to be passed along with the request and it's a
must...?
2. Also, we are not checking whether we have the original certificate - we
only rely on the TLS mutual auth validation at the container level -
Hi All,
The connector is released and published in the store [1].
[1]
https://store.wso2.com/store/assets/esbconnector/list?q=%22_default%22%3A%22ActiveCollab%22
[2] https://docs.wso2.com/display/ESBCONNECTORS/ActiveCollab+Connector
Vivekananthan Sivanayagam
Associate Software Engineer | WSO2
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Anjana Fernando wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So we are starting on porting the earlier DAS specific functionality to
> C5. And with this, we are planning on not embedding the Spark server
> functionality to the primary binary itself, but rather run it
If you really want to handle all exceptions being thrown in the same way
you can use a multi exception catch block[1](supported from Java 7) to do
this. That way the component developer doesn't have to worry about defining
exception hierarchies, which is really not the concern of the component
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Harsha Kumara wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Malith Jayasinghe
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Harsha,
>>
>> It makes sense to define specific exceptions. However, I am wondering (in
>> most of these cases) whether the
+1 for having custom exceptions. However, as Malintha mentioned I believe
it will help us having exception hierarchy. There may be cases where
catching top level exceptions may be sufficient. If we have a hierarchy,
programmer can decide which one to use depending on the context.
Thanks
Susinda
+1 for having separate exception classes. It's also good if you want to
define different hierarchies of exceptions, but we need to think carefully
and properly group those exceptions.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Harsha Kumara wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:14
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Inosh Goonewardena wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback, some interesting points were brought up
>>
>> @Abimaran, the problem with maintaining a rigid
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Malith Jayasinghe
wrote:
> Hi Harsha,
>
> It makes sense to define specific exceptions. However, I am wondering (in
> most of these cases) whether the caller can do anything specially to handle
> these exception (I guess this will depend on how
Hi all,
I recently finished above discussed implementation and procedure underwent
several modifications to overcome few erroneous situations arose. Current
flow with those modifications are summarized in the following Fig 1.2.
Please find the corresponding pr in [1].
* Fig 1.2*[1]
On 21 October 2016 at 10:09, Chamila Adhikarinayake
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Malintha,
>>
>> What do we gain by defining an exception hierarchy? As long as we can
>> differentiate between
14 matches
Mail list logo