Hi Chamila,
As we discussed, I am writing separate OSGI component by using Andes
client as a dependency. I'm not going to compose failover list, I get the
IP address by calling admin service and according to that load balance the
client per connections. The periodical task can be configurable.
+1 for going with an optional parameter and change it for unique,
firstUnique as well.
I was wondering whether specifying the duplicate event eviction strategy
should be specifiable from the language itself. But I think it would be an
overkill. So +1 for this approach.
Thanks,
Lasantha
On Fri,
I also think it's better to have an optional parameter for the two cases rather
than having two different windows.
Since our convention was to consider 'first unique' as the special case we can
have a Boolean optional parameter such as 'isFirstUnique' to alter the window
behavior and let the
Hi Sidath,
I'm a bit confused on the use of an OSGi component. AFAIU this "has" to be
handled by the Andes client. Please correct me if I'm wrong. With this
approach,
1. One broker URL will be provided
2. The andes-client will call the proposed admin service and compose the
failover
Hi Abilashini,
Are you using JSON-based identity tokens ? Then you need to maintain
proper encryption for that.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Abilashini Thiyagarajah <
abilash...@wso2.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> OpenID Connect is an authentication layer on top of OAuth 2.0 protocol
> which is
Good point, Lasantha. Thanks for bringing it up.
In my point of view, going forward, it's better to have a parameter to a
Unique Window to specify whether to drop first event or the last event,
rather than having two windows as Unique Window and First Unique Window.
I think so, because otherwise
Hi,
OpenID Connect is an authentication layer on top of OAuth 2.0 protocol
which is becoming more popular to be used. The idea of this project is to
implement a valve for WSO2 AS which supports OpenID Connect based Single
Sign On (SSO). The valve will be implemented as a global level Tomcat
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Malintha Amarasinghe
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Mohanadarshan Vivekanandalingam <
> mo...@wso2.com> wrote:
>
>> HI Malintha/Nuwan,
>>
>> I have few queries and like to provide few clarifications on this..
>>
>>
Hi all,
If we go by the basic unique window implementation we have, we have
introduced two implementations (unique and firstUnique) [1.2]. If we go by
that convention, we would have to create a separate window for the first
unique implementations.
I think the rational behind having a unique
Hi Malith,
+1, Will add in the implementation.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Dilini Muthumala wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Malith Jayasinghe
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dilini,
>>
>> Can we provide an option here to specify which event to be dropped
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Malith Jayasinghe
wrote:
> Hi Dilini,
>
> Can we provide an option here to specify which event to be dropped (i.e.
> earlier event or the later one)?
>
Hi Malith,
+1 to provide that option.
Platform Extensions team,
If we add that option,
Hi Dilini,
Can we provide an option here to specify which event to be dropped (i.e.
earlier event or the later one)?
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Dilini Muthumala wrote:
> Adding architecture list
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Dilini Muthumala
>
Hi Chamila,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Chamila Adhikarinayake
wrote:
> Hi Nandika/Vinod
>
> Thanks for the information related to BPMN. I'll check on BPMN User tasks
> as a replacement for human tasks
>
> @jena,
> The default implementation will execute for every
Adding architecture list
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Dilini Muthumala wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As Rajjaz is working on implementing UniqueTimeBatchWindow and
> UniqueLengthBatchWindow, we were discussing below design for the window:
>
> As we know, UniqueTimeBatchWindow can
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Mohanadarshan Vivekanandalingam <
mo...@wso2.com> wrote:
> HI Malintha/Nuwan,
>
> I have few queries and like to provide few clarifications on this..
>
> Actually most of the points that you guys raised are discussed before and
> changed based on some
15 matches
Mail list logo