Big +1 for moving from toolboxes to the CAR files. In architecture thread "WSO2 Configuration deployment dilemma" I have suggested some other concerns on moving all the WSO2 configurations to CAR files. Anyway if we are following that strategy we will have to include many similar artifact types in a single CAR file. In other words we should have a standard way of defining distinguish artifact names in the top most level in a CAR directory structure. For examples suppose now there is a type as "analytics" which is a very generic name, used for Spark analytic scripts. After some time another analytic script type is also introduced. Now how the each script type is correctly represented? Old Spark SQL script has reserved the name "analytics" and the new one should have something like "new-analytics" which is not nice. This will get worse if another few analytic scripts types are to be introduced.
For that reason we can start using unique names for CAR artifacts as I mentioned in architecture thread, "Folder structure of Analytics Toolbox (BAM & CEP)" which will avoid this disaster in future. There we can follow something similar to the artifact names used in OSGi bundles / jar files. Thanks. *Maninda Edirisooriya* Senior Software Engineer *WSO2, Inc.*lean.enterprise.middleware. *Blog* : http://maninda.blogspot.com/ *E-mail* : [email protected] *Skype* : @manindae *Twitter* : @maninda On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Anjana Fernando <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > From BAM 3.0, we are thinking of replacing the toolbox packaging to CAR > files. The main motive for this came with CEP also requiring a packaging > format for their artifacts. So either, they also needed to use our toolbox > format, or else, go to a CAR packaging format, which is used with other > artifacts in the platform. > > So basically, as I feel, our artifacts like, stream definitions, analytics > scripts, UI pages are also in the same category as ESBs sequences, proxies, > endpoints etc.. so if they also don't use a new packaging format, but > rather use CAR, we also don't have a special reason to have a separate one. > So for these reasons, and also not to have too many packaging formats in > the platform, we also though of going with the standard model with CAR. > > CEP have already suggested this for their artifacts in the thread [1]. > > If there are any concerns, please shout. > > [1] [Architecture] cApp deployer support for WSO2 CEP > > Cheers, > Anjana. > -- > *Anjana Fernando* > Senior Technical Lead > WSO2 Inc. | http://wso2.com > 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
