+1 for separate artifacts. That would also help us to keep the same UI flow.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Supun Sethunga <[email protected]> wrote: > [+ arch@] > > Hi, > > IMO, we have to go with separate artifacts, for the easiness of > maintainability. for eg: if we have separate artifacts (say for projects > and analyzes), > > - One can easily add and remove analyzes at any time from a project, > just by adding/deleting the file corresponds to that artifact. > - Since it doesn't require updating any existing files, that also > eliminates the possibility of affecting (rather harming) existing > projects/analyzes. > - This also means, one corrupted analyzes (or project or any other > 'module') would not affect other analyzes. > > Regards, > Supun > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Nethaji Chandrasiri <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Since I'm working on deployable artifact model scenario I made a list [1] >> of pros and cons of both the approaches I found so far. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/a/wso2.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lm5xSmXOG1dDEXGPOthI7nnsjwjKt-apwj77SjxB3Fg/edit?usp=sharing >> >> -- >> *Nethaji Chandrasiri* >> *Software Engineering* *Intern; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com >> <http://wso2.com/>* >> Mobile : +94 (0) 779171059 <%2B94%20%280%29%20778%20800570> >> Email : [email protected] >> > > > > -- > *Supun Sethunga* > Software Engineer > WSO2, Inc. > http://wso2.com/ > lean | enterprise | middleware > Mobile : +94 716546324 > -- Thanks & regards, Nirmal Team Lead - WSO2 Machine Learner Associate Technical Lead - Data Technologies Team, WSO2 Inc. Mobile: +94715779733 Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
