Re: [Architecture] [C5][IS] IS 6.0 SP/IDP configuration file restructuring

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Farasath Ahamed wrote: > In the sample.yaml Service Provider configuration I noticed that we have > SAML related SP configurations in two sections "requestHandlerConfigs" and > "responseHandlerConfigs". > > Do we need this separation? Is there

Re: [Architecture] [C5][IS] IS 6.0 SP/IDP configuration file restructuring

In the sample.yaml Service Provider configuration I noticed that we have SAML related SP configurations in two sections "requestHandlerConfigs" and "responseHandlerConfigs". Do we need this separation? Is there any advantage of decoupling request and response related configurations related to an

Re: [Architecture] [C5][IS] IS 6.0 SP/IDP configuration file restructuring

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Darshana Gunawardana wrote: > +1 for this approach in general... > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Harsha Thirimanna > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Since we are moving to file base deployment for sp/idp, we have to create >>

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

Hi, Please find the answers inline. On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Shani Ranasinghe wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Rukshan Premathunga > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Another confusion scenario is some GW nodes are get register and again >> could

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Rukshan Premathunga wrote: > Hi all, > > Another confusion scenario is some GW nodes are get register and again > could be down. The another GW will register with same label and diffrent > URL. In this case are we allowed to update existing

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

Hi all, Another confusion scenario is some GW nodes are get register and again could be down. The another GW will register with same label and diffrent URL. In this case are we allowed to update existing level-GW_url or disallow to register that GW? Also if existing GW url is changed how we

Re: [Architecture] C5 User Core Delete User Operation

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Gayan Gunawardana wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Darshana Gunawardana > wrote: > >> Hi Ishara, >> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Ishara Karunarathna >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think

Re: [Architecture] [Architecutre][IS][C5] Do we need to have multiple inbound/outbound authenticator config in one SP/IDP

Hi Harsha, On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Harsha Thirimanna wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Isuru Haththotuwa wrote: > >> Hi Johann, >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Johann Nallathamby >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 7,

Re: [Architecture] C5 User Core Delete User Operation

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Darshana Gunawardana wrote: > Hi Ishara, > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Ishara Karunarathna > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think this says "Service providers MAY choose not to permanently delete >> the resource" and ask

Re: [Architecture] [C5][IS] IS 6.0 SP/IDP configuration file restructuring

+1 for this approach in general... On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Harsha Thirimanna wrote: > Hi All, > > Since we are moving to file base deployment for sp/idp, we have to create > these files using yaml. While doing that we thought to resolve some issues > and generalize

Re: [Architecture] C5 User Core Delete User Operation

Hi Ishara, On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Ishara Karunarathna wrote: > Hi, > > I think this says "Service providers MAY choose not to permanently delete > the resource" and ask service provider to behave like > resources i deleted. > > So In our case its ok to delete

[Architecture] [C5][IS] IS 6.0 SP/IDP configuration file restructuring

Hi All, Since we are moving to file base deployment for sp/idp, we have to create these files using yaml. While doing that we thought to resolve some issues and generalize the sp/idp files. As we have now in IS 5.3.0, we configure local authenticator in SP and federated authenticator in IDP file.

Re: [Architecture] C5 User Core Delete User Operation

Hi, I think this says "Service providers MAY choose not to permanently delete the resource" and ask service provider to behave like resources i deleted. So In our case its ok to delete resource when we get the delete request. And in our implementation we have inactive, and disable option for

Re: [Architecture] C5 User Core Delete User Operation

Hi Gayan, On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Gayan Gunawardana wrote: > Hi All, > > How are we going to support user delete operation in user core ? > Currently IdentityStore --> deleteUser operation delete user from user > store. Is there any future plan to set delete flag apart

[Architecture] C5 User Core Delete User Operation

Hi All, How are we going to support user delete operation in user core ? Currently IdentityStore --> deleteUser operation delete user from user store. Is there any future plan to set delete flag apart from completely deleting user from user store. Appreciate your feedback since this is directly

Re: [Architecture] REST API versioning - which version to mandate in the URI scheme?

But, if we use minor version, we have to maintain separate methods/separate if checks to populate response for each minor versions. But, if we have optional parameters, then no need to have separate methods, if an optional parameter is there in the request, we can add a relevant response. If we

Re: [Architecture] Adding reusable PDF table generator OSGI component to IS 6.0.0 Analytics

This can be used as a carbon component as well as in a non-carbon environment. As a carbon component, I have called it from a jaggery file [1] the tests are written in an non-carbon environment [2] [1]

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

Hi Shani, Initially, you cannot update or delete a particular label. But you can add a new label by starting up a new gateway with a new label. Then if you need to change the particular label in an API, you need to update that API. Thank you! On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Shani Ranasinghe

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

At this stage, are we looking at editing a label also? On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Pubudu Gunatilaka wrote: > Hi, > > Please find the answers inline. > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Abimaran Kugathasan > wrote: > >> Will Gateway pull APIs based on

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

Hi, Please find the answers inline. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Abimaran Kugathasan wrote: > Will Gateway pull APIs based on the labels which are assigned to them from > Message Broker, or they will pull all the APIs and the only APIs which are > having the defined label

Re: [Architecture] REST API versioning - which version to mandate in the URI scheme?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Abimaran Kugathasan wrote: > Hi All, > > How are we going to differentiate when to have the new minor version and > when to create new major version? > If we're doing a back-wards incompatible change then it has to be on a new major version. >

Re: [Architecture] REST API versioning - which version to mandate in the URI scheme?

Hi Abimaran, I guess, within the same Major version range, we can't change mandatory > request parameters and response parameters. So, without using minor > versions, can't use optional parameters to the APIs? Yes, we are not changing request or response in same major version. The

Re: [Architecture] REST API versioning - which version to mandate in the URI scheme?

Hi Abimaran, On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Abimaran Kugathasan wrote: > Hi All, > > How are we going to differentiate when to have the new minor version and > when to create new major version? > When we introduce a new optional parameter, that will become a new minor

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

Hi, Please find the answers inline. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Lalaji Sureshika wrote: > Hi Pubudu, > > In above diagram,both the gateway types are pointing to same > keymanager.,Have we considered the scenario of having different > keymanagers per each gateway node.For

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

Will Gateway pull APIs based on the labels which are assigned to them from Message Broker, or they will pull all the APIs and the only APIs which are having the defined label for the gateway will be served and other APIs will be discarded? On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Harsha Kumara

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

Hi Pubudu, On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Pubudu Gunatilaka wrote: > Hi, > > There can be situations where we need to host public gateways for public > traffic as well as private gateways for internal traffic. In general, there > can be different gateway environments which

Re: [Architecture] REST API versioning - which version to mandate in the URI scheme?

Hi All, How are we going to differentiate when to have the new minor version and when to create new major version? I guess, within the same Major version range, we can't change mandatory request parameters and response parameters. So, without using minor versions, can't use optional parameters

Re: [Architecture] REST API versioning - which version to mandate in the URI scheme?

Hi Malintha, We are defining the Minor-Version header in the parameters section and then > including the reference of the Minor-Version parameter using ($ref) in the > methods we need explicitly right? Yes. We are defining it in the parameter section and adding it using $ref for all the

Re: [Architecture] REST API versioning - which version to mandate in the URI scheme?

Hi Anuruddha, We are defining the Minor-Version header in the parameters section and then including the reference of the Minor-Version parameter using ($ref) in the methods we need explicitly right? Since we do not need to support minor version in every resource, it is fine to handle it

Re: [Architecture] REST API versioning - which version to mandate in the URI scheme?

Hi, I am planning to implement the minor version header functionality. Please find below the implementation details. Appreciate your feedback on this approach. 1. The custom HTTP header will look like below: # The HTTP Minor-Version header # Used to validate the minor version of API

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Pubudu Gunatilaka wrote: > We do not have a predefined label sets. But we may have to use a default > label for the single node deployment. When starting up a gateway node we > should provide a label. Then this label will be saved in the database

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

Hi, Please find the answers inline. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Roshan Wijesena wrote: > Label approach is much more cleaner for me then API publisher can decide > where that API should go. > > Question :- How publisher and gateways both sync with label names? when an >

Re: [Architecture] [C5][APIM] Introducing labels based gateway environments in API Manager

Hi, Please find the answers inline. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Abimaran Kugathasan wrote: > HI Pubudu, > > 1. Who will be responsible for creating these labels? I guess, it should > be created from Admin Portal and those labels should be propagated to > store,

Re: [Architecture] [Architecutre][IS][C5] Do we need to have multiple inbound/outbound authenticator config in one SP/IDP

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Isuru Haththotuwa wrote: > Hi Johann, > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Johann Nallathamby > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Dulanja Liyanage >> wrote: >> >>> SPs and IdPs represent real