Hi Pawel,
I would be a +1 for removing the demo capture agent. I thought it would
not be part of the default 1.3 install anymore?
It would be a good idea too to separate the CA release cycle from the
core release cycles. It would probably help to get the APIs more stable.
And the CA has other milestones like th release of a new Ubuntu version,
that the Core system. Unfortunately this would probably mean that we
would need a release managment for the CA too and we would need a QA
phase for this. Another pro would be that testing the CA and the core
can be more focused than, as we don not need to evaluate the whole system.
Regards
Rüdiger
Am 17.04.2012 10:35, schrieb Pawel Fic:
I know that capture agent& Matterhorn Server can be separated, but only
advanced users know how to do it. And I have noticed that there is some confusion
on Matterhorn Users group about it.
When I was newcomer to Matterhorn, I was also confused about it.
Capture Agent& MAtterhorn Server supposed to be separate projects.
Having them together causes a lot of confusions and some major problems.
Here is that at least needs to be done:
1. separate installation procedure for Matterhorn Server& Capture Agent
so each newcomer would know that Capture Agent it not a part of the server.
2. separate configuration files.
Of course "docs" should be divided into:
"server-docs" directory
"capture-agent-docs" directory.
PROS:
1. newcomers (and users) will not be confused
(digest.matterhorn.system.account.password =<password for capture agent> -LOL)
2. there will be a way (documented) to install one server& plenty of capture
agents
3. users will get a change to test server against already stable capture
agents
CONS:
1. some additional documentation must be made.
==========
I personally would go even further, and create a separate repository for
capture agent, so the server's source code can be cleaned up.
On the capture agent's code, if necessary I would copy a part of the server
source code with a notice that it is read only, and will stay that way or even
will be removed.
PROS:
1. developers will be aware that Capture Agent is separate product next to
the server. And that there is something like backward compatibility, and then
some REST endpoints on the server side cannot just be changed.
Developer changing content of scheduler would instantly know, that hist
capture agent stopped working, and then s/he would know that change to capture
agent is needed, and while doing change to capture agent, s/he would know that
what s/he did is ruined third party capture agents,
+ all existing installation will switch to new version of Matterhorn.
CONS:
1. new repository.
2. work spend on splitting it.
3. slower changes to Capture Agent (BUT! It's also mentioned in pros)
What do you think about it?
What are your votes on it?
-Pawel
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
--
________________________________________________
Rüdiger Rolf, M.A.
Universität Osnabrück - Zentrum virtUOS
Heger-Tor-Wall 12, 49069 Osnabrück
Telefon: (0541) 969-6511 - Fax: (0541) 969-16511
E-Mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.virtuos.uni-osnabrueck.de
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
