On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Dimuthu Leelarathne <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi All, > > IMO, correct answer is > > to provide app specific ALM. And we can go a step further and give > customisable ALM. I don't believe configuration is the correct answer. > +1 to provide app specific ALM in later. > But for 2.0.0 we have hit alpha, so no time to do architectural changes. > So it is either going to be that it goes through the lifecycle or goes > straight to production via a workaround (eg. promote twice by the system so > that it is in production) > > > The trick here is to understand what is the most common use case? Whether > an uploaded app needs to go through lifecycle or not? It is not like > math(no absolute correct answer), but rather figuring out what is the most > natural behaviour so that we can make the only behaviour in this release > (go through lifecycle or not). > > If I am an App Factory user, to me the most natural behaviour when I > upload an executable file is for it to be in production. Just my two cents. > If we try to deploy war file directly to the production, then only the devOps users can create new war type application, because only DevOps has the permission to do anything on the production stage. I think it is right use case, because there are no further development stuff with this app type (war file deployment). Only one concern, there may be further QA process on that app. > thanks, > dimuthu > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Harsha Thirimanna <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I feel, the user story can be different for the artifact LC in place to >> place. It is better if we can make this as configurable. Then , we can >> ignore some stages for specific artifacts. WDYT ? >> >> thanks >> >> >> *Harsha Thirimanna* >> Senior Software Engineer; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com >> * <http://www.apache.org/>* >> * email: **[email protected]* <[email protected]>* cell: +94 71 5186770* >> * twitter: **http://twitter.com/ <http://twitter.com/afkham_azeez>* >> *harshathirimann linked-in: **http: >> <http://lk.linkedin.com/in/afkhamazeez>**//www.linkedin.com/pub/harsha-thirimanna/10/ab8/122 >> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harsha-thirimanna/10/ab8/122>* >> >> *Lean . Enterprise . Middleware* >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Ramith Jayasinghe <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> my feeling is that we could go through governance process ( a.k.a Having >>> the uploaded War file in Devlopement Stage first and user promotes it to >>> Production). >>> Main Reason: >>> think about a scenario where only devOps team has the access to >>> Production stage. Does would mean DevOps team could create an application >>> (just to upload this war file). that would complicate our governance story >>> (and the permission model). >>> >>> besides I guess we don't have to support it unless a user asks for it. >>> thoughts ? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Punnadi Gunarathna >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> App Factory currently supports uploading a WAR file via 'Add New >>>> Application'. >>>> >>>> As per the current implementation we have a config file which has >>>> ApplicationLifecycle aspect (refer the attachment for more details). >>>> Therefore when an application >>>> is added out of a WAR file, the initial stage is set to "Development". >>>> >>>> So my concern is whether the WAR file should go through all the life >>>> cycle stages (Promote/Demote) as an ordinary application or should it >>>> directly go to "Production" stage. >>>> >>>> If we go-ahead with all life cycle stages, then it requires minimal set >>>> of changes. >>>> If the requirement is to set the life cycle state as "Production" there >>>> are two ways to achieve this requirement: >>>> >>>> 1. One way is to keep the existing aspect and when the war is created >>>> do internal calls('Promote') at application update itself to take the >>>> application to "Production" stage. >>>> 2. Define another aspect config for WAR files and godhead with it. >>>> >>>> Please share your thoughts. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks and Regards, >>>> >>>> Punnadi Gunarathna >>>> Senior Software Engineer, >>>> WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com <http://wso2> >>>> Blog: http://hi-my-world.blogspot.com/ >>>> Tel : 94 11 214 5345 >>>> Fax :94 11 2145300 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <http://lalajisureshika.blogspot.com/> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Architecture mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ramith Jayasinghe >>> Technical Lead >>> WSO2 Inc., http://wso2.com >>> lean.enterprise.middleware >>> >>> E: [email protected] >>> P: +94 776715671 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Architecture mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Architecture mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >> >> > > > -- > Dimuthu Leelarathne > Architect & Product Lead of App Factory > > WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com) > email: [email protected] > Mobile : 0773661935 > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > _______________________________________________ > Architecture mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > >
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
