Yes better to fix this type of issues in the next release, I also found
several other JSON arrays defined in singular form.
Thanks
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Reka Thirunavukkarasu
wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 20
Hi
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Reka Thirunavukkarasu
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> An update of what are the beans need to get changed with properties
>> instead of property:
>>
>> - cartridge definition property section
>> -
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Reka Thirunavukkarasu
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> An update of what are the beans need to get changed with properties
> instead of property:
>
> - cartridge definition property section
> - cartridge definition IaaSProvider/property
> - application/property in application
Hi All,
An update of what are the beans need to get changed with properties instead
of property:
- cartridge definition property section
- cartridge definition IaaSProvider/property
- application/property in application definition
- PartitionBean
- KubernetesClusterBean
- KubernetesHostBean
- Kub
Hi All,
Also, please note that application uses property. If noone is using this
property in the application at the moment, then i can change it and update
the samples.
Thanks,
Reka
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Reka Thirunavukkarasu
wrote:
> Hi Shaheed/Martin/Vanson,
>
> In order to keep
+1 for adhering to properties everywhere
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Reka Thirunavukkarasu
wrote:
> Hi Shaheed/Martin/Vanson,
>
> In order to keep the convention, i will have to change the cartridge
> definition bean to use properties instead of property. Do you have any
> issue with this c
Hi Shaheed/Martin/Vanson,
In order to keep the convention, i will have to change the cartridge
definition bean to use properties instead of property. Do you have any
issue with this change as it will change the cartridge definition?
Thanks,
Reka
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Anuruddha Liyanar
+1 for the properties.
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Lahiru Sandaruwan wrote:
> Yes. We need to be consistent everywhere. +1 for properties.
>
> Thanks.
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Reka Thirunavukkarasu
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I saw when using propeties in the definition, we haven't
+1 for properties
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Reka Thirunavukkarasu
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I saw when using propeties in the definition, we haven't used a
> convention. In some definition it mentioned as ,
>
> properties[
> {
> "name" : "aaa"
> "value" : "b"
> }
> ]
>
> and in some
>
> proper
Yes. We need to be consistent everywhere. +1 for properties.
Thanks.
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Reka Thirunavukkarasu
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I saw when using propeties in the definition, we haven't used a
> convention. In some definition it mentioned as ,
>
> properties[
> {
> "name" : "aaa"
>
Hi
I saw when using propeties in the definition, we haven't used a convention.
In some definition it mentioned as ,
properties[
{
"name" : "aaa"
"value" : "b"
}
]
and in some
property[
{
"name" : "aaa"
"value" : "b"
}
]
IMO we should go with properties everywhere as it contains an arra
11 matches
Mail list logo
