As per the offline chat had with Azeez, We decided to migrate move service
clients resided in Test Framework API to relevant service-stub modules.
This will allow us to detect and fix the build breaks due to admin service
api changes easily and eliminate test framework build breaks.
And external u
Yes most of the commons projects are not under development we can only move
the actively developed projects.
One suggestion, When looking at the WSO2 org in Git we have lots of junk
repos. Are we going to remove then?
Or can't we have a separate Git org called "WSO2 Middleware Platform" and
have a
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014, Senaka Fernando wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> +1 for Sagara's proposal. These projects have a life outside the Carbon
>> Platform. But, we need to find a place to host them. If everything ends
Hi all,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014, Senaka Fernando wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> +1 for Sagara's proposal. These projects have a life outside the Carbon
> Platform. But, we need to find a place to host them. If everything ends up
> on GitHub should these be in their too? If so, are they a WSO2 reposit
Hi all,
+1 for Sagara's proposal. These projects have a life outside the Carbon
Platform. But, we need to find a place to host them. If everything ends up
on GitHub should these be in their too? If so, are they a WSO2 repository?
Or is it a separate TLP?
Thanks,
Senaka.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Sriskandarajah Suhothayan wrote:
> How about WSO2 Commons projects, E.g Siddhi ?
>
> Currently its in commons and under dependencies/commons
>
> Where should we have this?
>
> I believe projects like Siddhi also need to be top level repos may be
> "commons-siddhi"
How about WSO2 Commons projects, E.g Siddhi ?
Currently its in commons and under dependencies/commons
Where should we have this?
I believe projects like Siddhi also need to be top level repos may be
"commons-siddhi" and it don't need be in dependencies/commons anymore.
WDYT?
Suho
On Tue, Jan
Hi All
Please find the updated governance component in [1].
thanks
Eranda
[1]. https://github.com/wso2/carbon-governance
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Shariq Muhammed wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
>
>> Hi Shariq,
>> Yeah, we may not needed those to
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
> Hi Shariq,
> Yeah, we may not needed those to be build again and again. So let's add
> related stubs to service-stubs directory in each repo.
>
Yea lets structure it that way.
>
> thanks
> Eranda
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:51
Hi Shariq,
Yeah, we may not needed those to be build again and again. So let's add
related stubs to service-stubs directory in each repo.
thanks
Eranda
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Shariq Muhammed wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Kishanthan Thangarajah <
> kishant...@wso2.com> w
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Shariq Muhammed wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Kishanthan Thangarajah <
> kishant...@wso2.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, we don't need to separately say "service-stubs", it should be under
>> the components level as just another component.
>>
>
> Initially we
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Kishanthan Thangarajah <
kishant...@wso2.com> wrote:
> Yes, we don't need to separately say "service-stubs", it should be under
> the components level as just another component.
>
Initially we extracted out the service stubs because it doesn't change
frequently.
Yes, we don't need to separately say "service-stubs", it should be under
the components level as just another component.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
> Hi Kicha,
> There will be no service stubs directory it will be a additional component
> in the same level as
Hi Kicha,
There will be no service stubs directory it will be a additional component
in the same level as BE + FE components.
thanks
Eranda
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Kishanthan Thangarajah <
kishant...@wso2.com> wrote:
> Hi Eranda,
>
> Where have you put the service-stubs related to gov
Hi Eranda,
Where have you put the service-stubs related to governance component? It
should come under the same repo as carbon-component-governance.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
> Hi All,
> As a PoC I just completed the carbon-component-governance. Please find i
Hi Chamath,
Can you attend the meeting scheduled at 11 to sort all the identity
components out?
thanks
Eranda
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Chamath Gunawardana wrote:
> Hi Eranda,
>
> The user-stores feature under carbon-feature-identity seems to be a
> duplicate of user core. AFAIK we can
Hi Eranda,
The user-stores feature under carbon-feature-identity seems to be a
duplicate of user core. AFAIK we can remove this.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
> Hi All,
> Here is the updated component categorization.
>
> Remove forever
>
>- qpid
>- rest
Hi All,
As a PoC I just completed the carbon-component-governance. Please find it
in [1] and let me know your comments and suggestions. Please keep in mind
that this is not in a buildable state since other components need to build
before this.
thanks
Eranda
[1] https://github.com/wso2/carbon-comp
Hi, I will be setting up a meeting (tomorrow 11am) to discuss and finalize
the above mentioned component categorization. Can we have at least one
person from each product team in that meeting who has knowledge of the
component structure relevant to their products?
Thanks
Shevan
On Mon, Jan 20, 2
Hi all,
Azeez is correct. But even with #2, there are productive ways of managing
that. Read [1] for example. Oh and BTW, our git repositories better have
some good conventions. Right now, [2] is a little messy.
[1]
http://www.lshift.net/blog/2013/06/27/managing-multiple-github-repositories
[2] h
Hi Azeez,
+1 for this model. This will solve most of the issues that we are facing in
the current system.
Senaka, see my comment below.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Senaka Fernando wrote:
> Hi Azeez, Eranda,
>
> +1 for the proposed changes. So, as discussed we have two options.
>
> 1. In
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar <
shan...@wso2.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote:
>
>> Hi Azeez,
>>
>> +1 for this model. This will solve most of the issues that we are facing
>> in the current system.
>>
>>
>> Senaka, see my c
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar <
> shan...@wso2.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Azeez,
>>>
>>> +1 for this model. This will solve most of th
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Sameera Jayasoma wrote:
> Hi Azeez,
>
> +1 for this model. This will solve most of the issues that we are facing
> in the current system.
>
>
> Senaka, see my comment below.
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Senaka Fernando wrote:
>
>> Hi Azeez, Eranda,
>>
>
Can we get rid of XKMS, XFer & Mex? I don't think anybody is using those.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote:
> Hi Kasun,
>
> Please find my comments inline.
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Kasun Gajasinghe wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the list Eranda. One que
Hi All,
Here is the updated component categorization.
Remove forever
- qpid
- rest-api
- jaxws
- mashup - used by AS
Need to move to relevent products
- stratos
- cloud-controller
- appfac
- ec2-client
- cg
Graduate to nexus
- mapred
- email-verification
-
Hi Kasun,
Please find my comments inline.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Kasun Gajasinghe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the list Eranda. One question - With the new architecture can
> we knitpick or exclude some underlying components when installing a given
> feature? For ex. what if we need t
Hi,
Thanks for the list Eranda. One question - With the new architecture can
we knitpick or exclude some underlying components when installing a given
feature? For ex. what if we need to exclude cassandra when installing
carbon-feature-utils to a product?
Please see my suggestions on the categor
Hi,
+1 for the categorization.
Is there a way to make a Tree graph or something displaying
the dependency graph? And maintain it somewhere? In that way in the long
run we will have a clear visibility (when new components/features added).
Thanks
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Eranda Sooriyaban
Hi Azeez,
+1 for maintaining the dependency graph. I guess we can use registry OOTB
for it.
Also devs can use mvn dependency:tree to get the dependency tree.
Thanks and Regards,
Harshana
On 18 Jan 2014 22:47, "Afkham Azeez" wrote:
> Under dependency governance, the plan is to show the dependen
Under dependency governance, the plan is to show the dependency graph, so
that when an upstream dependency changes, we would know what downstream
code would be affected.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Hasitha Hiranya wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 for the categorization.
> Is there a way to make a Tree
Hi All,
Here is the component categorization.
Remove forever
- qpid
- rest-api
- mashup
Need to move to relevent products
- stratos
- cloud-controller
- appfac
- ec2-client
- cg
Graduate to nexus
- mapred
- email-verification
- captcha-mgt
- tryit
- wsd
Hi Azeez, Eranda,
+1 for the proposed changes. So, as discussed we have two options.
1. In the git repo, go for wso2/carbon/feature or wso2/carbon/product model
and then have features such as registry, governance and products such as
esb.
2. Go with the model Azeez wrote in e-mail.
We need to fi
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Nirmal Fernando wrote:
> Huge +1 for the proposed solution. One small question, when you say
> components/features are those imply dependencies (in current terms) as
> well?
>
With respect to orbit bundles, we will create them and immediately upload
them to Nexus
Huge +1 for the proposed solution. One small question, when you say
components/features are those imply dependencies (in current terms) as
well?
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Afkham Azeez wrote:
> [Sorry for the very long mail. I want to document all that I had in mind &
> the stuff we discu
35 matches
Mail list logo
