Hi all,
I think we reached the proper consensus here. So, the idea is to clean-up
the registry.api and the registry implementation and several other things
you find inside the registry kernel. We couldn't afford to do this in the
past for the sake of compatibility, but C5 is all about these kind o
Hi Eranda and All,
Along with this effort, I would suggest (thinking ahead for Carbon-5), we
should clearly define the registry API's first, and have a minimal registry
implementation at kernel and move other core registry parts (app,
synchronization, client) to components level and make registry
Hi Azeez,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
>
>> Hi Azeez,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
>>
>>> Rather than removing registry.api, start cleaning it up & use it. In
>>> 2010, w
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
> Hi Azeez,
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
>
>> To add more context, what you have in registry.core is not a proper API.
>> It has implementation details leaked all over the interface. The idea to
>> introduce a
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
> Hi Azeez,
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
>
>> Rather than removing registry.api, start cleaning it up & use it. In
>> 2010, we introduced registry.api & user-api, with a view to getting all
>> future code to
Hi Azeez,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
> To add more context, what you have in registry.core is not a proper API.
> It has implementation details leaked all over the interface. The idea to
> introduce a clean registry.api started in order to define a proper API.
> Please s
Hi Azeez,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
> Rather than removing registry.api, start cleaning it up & use it. In 2010,
> we introduced registry.api & user-api, with a view to getting all future
> code to properly use those APIs, and stop using interfaces from
> registry.core
To add more context, what you have in registry.core is not a proper API. It
has implementation details leaked all over the interface. The idea to
introduce a clean registry.api started in order to define a proper API.
Please spend your time getting that API properly designed & fixed, and used
in th
Rather than removing registry.api, start cleaning it up & use it. In 2010,
we introduced registry.api & user-api, with a view to getting all future
code to properly use those APIs, and stop using interfaces from
registry.core & user.core.
I am -1 on removing this
Azeez
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:
Hi Kicha,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Kishanthan Thangarajah
wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, since all these code reside at kernel level, this
> will require a new kernel release?
>
Yes, we need a new kernel release since this will change the registry API.
Also this is planned for G-Reg 5 whi
If I'm not mistaken, since all these code reside at kernel level, this will
require a new kernel release?
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
> Hi All,
> Interfaces and classes in org.wso2.carbon.registry.api.* are almost all
> duplicated [1] in org.wso2.carbon.registry.
Hi All,
Interfaces and classes in org.wso2.carbon.registry.api.* are almost all
duplicated [1] in org.wso2.carbon.registry.core.*. It's been very confusing
to have same interface in two place where both of those interfaces used for
the same purpose. Most of the time we used org.wso2.carbon.registry
12 matches
Mail list logo
