Sorry about that. I thought this needs to be done after the device identity
thing which we talked about doing with IS roadmap.

Regards,

Dilshan

On 29 April 2016 at 13:53, Prabath Abeysekera <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, supporting device identity is indeed something that's there in the
> product roadmap. However, that I'm afraid is out of the scope of what's
> proposed and intended to be discussed within this particular thread.
>
> That said, if you are willing to contribute to the platform WRT getting
> device identity implemented, and also have got a design/architecture in
> mind, please do go ahead and initiate a separate thread in architecture@,
> so we can discuss it there.
>
> Cheers,
> Prabath
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Dilshan Edirisuriya <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> What are the plans to support device identity? There are several
>> situations where you need to consider device as a top level element rather
>> than associating it with users. Eg; picking the device from authentication
>> level,  adding throttling policies for device etc.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dilshan
>>
>> On 28 April 2016 at 17:56, Prabath Abeysekera <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> As all know, CDM-F is a platform that allows folks to easily extend its
>>> plug-in model and seamlessly add support for new device types. So, ATM,
>>> "Device Management Plugin" is the primary top level construct that can be
>>> extended in the framework, to cater the aforementioned requirement.
>>>
>>> I'm proposing "Device Management Feature" too should be treated as a
>>> similar top-level extensible construct, particularly considering "EMM-like"
>>> scenarios, in which we ship a standard set of plug-ins, that needs to be
>>> extended to support a few new features. Here's why.
>>>
>>> Let's assume an organization is planning to deploy EMM to manage their
>>> devices. The list of "features" that needs to be managed by one
>>> organization might vary from that of another. Further, support for managing
>>> some of those might not even be available OOTB as part of EMM. To makes
>>> things more complicated, in certain cases, shipping all that sort of fancy
>>> features around OOTB in EMM wouldn't quite make sense as well. However, in
>>> the context of those adopting organizations, having the ability to control
>>> such features might be critical. As a result, there is always a possibility
>>> that these folks get lured into customize the existing functionalities if
>>> that level of extensibility is not available in the product.
>>>
>>> To cater the aforesaid requirement, the only option available right now
>>> is extending one of the existing plug-ins (with the new features) and then
>>> plugging the enhanced plug-in back into the product, which is somewhat a
>>> tedious task.
>>>
>>> To make things more easier for users, I propose making "Device
>>> Management Feature" an extensible construct, which can be utilized by the
>>> folks who want to extend an existing plug-in to seamlessly support new
>>> features that are not supported OOTB in the product. This can be thought of
>>> as something similar to the concept of "mediators" in the context of ESB as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Prabath
>>> --
>>> Prabath Abeysekara
>>> Technical Lead
>>> WSO2 Inc.
>>> Email: [email protected]
>>> Mobile: +94774171471
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Prabath Abeysekara
> Technical Lead
> WSO2 Inc.
> Email: [email protected]
> Mobile: +94774171471
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to