On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Chamil Jeewantha cha...@wso2.com wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry if I am distracting the thread.
The important facts when designing this solution:
1. It should be similar looking of master-datasources.xml
+1
2. We should consider the Data streams as similar to
With current design in memory message store will be used only in single
node mode.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Dhanuka Ranasinghe dhan...@wso2.com
wrote:
Also, normally publisher mention whether to persist or not messages in
message itself (delivery mode). So based on that MB will
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Sriskandarajah Suhothayan s...@wso2.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Chamil Jeewantha cha...@wso2.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Sriskandarajah Suhothayan
s...@wso2.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Chamil
Hi ,
Is there any possibility that we can relate these information to each
other. Basically , if i am looking for a particular message, would i be
able to check that in what following state that message is with this
improvement ?
Delivered
Acked
Nacked
Redelivered
Thanks
Shammi
On Thu, Jul
Hi
Problem [1]:
In the current appfactory setup in repository management module SCM plugin
version 1.7 is used as the repository management tool. Its implementation
uses the git command line client to execute git related commands and
therefore it is dependent on the git client installed on the
With the addition of message expiration feature RDBMS design for Metadata
in MB needs to be changed.
Updated design is as follows.
* Design considerations*
- Only a subset of messages comes with message expiration and a separate
thread handles deletion of expired messages.
-
Currently we use Global queue to handle the scenario where we receive
messages for a queue that does not have any subscriptions. However, due to
this large latency is added and message need to copied around lot.
Shammi and myself were discussing and look like it is possible to remove it
Sajini, I just sent a mail to arch@ Removing Global Queue from MB for
feedback.
if we did that I think we do not need a watermark. Please chat with Shammi
before continue.
--Srinath
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Sajini De Silva saj...@wso2.com wrote:
Hi Sumedha,
I did a research on
Hi All,
I have completed the feature. Can we have a review tomorrow.
Thanks,
Gayan
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Gayan Gunawardana ga...@wso2.com wrote:
Hi Johan,
According to offline chat we had, we can ignore Use-Case 03 and Use-Case
04.
For Use-Case 01 I have added extra claim for
+1 from me. If everyone are OK, we can get this done soon so other
toolboxes can be build on top of this.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Chamil Jeewantha cha...@wso2.com wrote:
+1 for optimization concern.
In general annotation based systems uses a cache to avoid processing
annotations
In a chat between Sanjiva, Shammi, Sagra, Miyuru and myself, we thought
this will enable other powerful scenarios.
For example, we want to send a message to a list of interesting parties.
One of those parties is a queue via which we need to load balance
processing. Currently we need to run a ESB
Hi Darshana,
To make this data more useful, i think we need to track these data with
message id's rather than counters or at least queue wise. So we ll be able
to make some decisions with that information. So could you please continue
the research with keeping that as requirement of this task.
Hi Shammi,
We still need to do some research on this. It will depend on how we keep
track on the message counters. It is possible if we keep track of each
message. But if we use a counter to keep track of graph data, then what you
suggest will not be possible. Any suggestion on this?
Thanks
Yes sure Shammi.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Shammi Jayasinghe sha...@wso2.com wrote:
Hi Darshana,
To make this data more useful, i think we need to track these data with
message id's rather than counters or at least queue wise. So we ll be able
to make some decisions with that
Hi,
According to mail arch@ Removing Global Queue from MB, maybe we need to
update this design.
Better we discuss upfront if so.
It will bring changes to messageStore interface.
Thanks
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Asitha Nanayakkara asi...@wso2.com wrote:
With the addition of message
+1, looks good to me, shall we just change the property order to
ordinal, I guess that is more suitable. And lets do a code review after
this is done, have to make sure, there won't be any performance overhead
because of this approach.
Cheers,
Anjana.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Srinath
Okay got it! :)
@supun : If you don't mind can you share the architecture diagram. I'm bit
interested in how it's done. how can we introduce new algorithms to the
component?
Thanks,
Rajith
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Supun Sethunga sup...@wso2.com wrote:
Hi Rajith,
The service is a
Currently, you have to edit code the add new algorithms. We will make it
configurable eventually, but at this stage we do not need a framework IMHO.
--Srinath
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Rajith Siriwardena raj...@wso2.com wrote:
Okay got it! :)
@supun : If you don't mind can you share
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of adopting this to improve
WSO2 Cloud Monitor by introducing ML to the system. Currently we are using
UDFs and UDAFs for the purpose. :)
Thanks,
Rajith
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Srinath Perera srin...@wso2.com wrote:
Currently, you have to
Can we chat f2f sometime, would like to understand the scenarios?
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Rajith Siriwardena raj...@wso2.com wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of adopting this to improve
WSO2 Cloud Monitor by introducing ML to the system. Currently we are using
Sure I will. I guess you can remember we are using Monte Carlo Simulation
using hive UDAFs and UDFs for predict disk space exhaustion. Currently
system is deployed for testing and in the last discussion we limited our
scope that for the time being. With ML I thought we can improve the
system. I
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Sameera Jayaratna samee...@wso2.com
wrote:
Users can handle pagination manually
Limit the ‘count’ for a max value
How can we define the number of pages in pagination?
This is possible,
User can define number item for the page,
Initial call we get total number
Hi all,
I have started working on the $subject.
In current Siddhi implementation, for a partition query execution will be
carried out for each partition key separately and results will be directed
to a single stream. Ones the results of the partition query is sent to the
output stream there is
Hi,
*Participants:*
- *ES:* Manu, Ruchira , Udara, SameeraM
- *AM:* Sumedha, Jo
- *Mobile:* Chan
- Sanjiva,Dhakshika,SameeraP and Chanaka
*Purpose*
- Demonstrate the current status of the Unified UI Framework
*Problem we are trying to solve:*
*What is the best way for us to
24 matches
Mail list logo
