Re: [Architecture] Proposed Key Schema for LevelDB Store of Message Broker

Hi Wishmitha, 1. How are we going to support HA deployment with LevelDB? Are we going to use a network file system or replicate data? 2. If we wanted to get a set of message matching a given queue ID, do we have to traverse all messages to get that? In RDBMS this is easier to do

Re: [Architecture] Proposed Key Schema for LevelDB Store of Message Broker

Hi Wishmitha, As per ActiveMQ [1] it says "The LevelDB store has been deprecated and is no longer supported or recommended for use. The recommended store is KahaDB" ... Are we aware of the reason LevelDB is not recommending in ActiveMQ? In that case are we on the correct path to use LevelDB ?

Re: [Architecture] Proposed Key Schema for LevelDB Store of Message Broker

Hi Sumedha, The Java library for LevelDB (leveldbjni) creates the database as follows as mentioned in the docs. [1] Options options = new Options(); DB db = factory.open(new File("example"), options); This will create the database in a directory on a given path. And in the library docs, it is

Re: [Architecture] How valid is sending TOTP code to email? How about sending it over SMS?

+1 for support both options. Then, admin can configure either SMS or E-mail or both depending on their service availability. Regards, *Dakshika Jayathilaka* PMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos Associate Technical Lead WSO2, Inc. lean.enterprise.middleware 0771100911 On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at

Re: [Architecture] Proposed Key Schema for LevelDB Store of Message Broker

Hi Wishmitha, Would leveldb architecture be efficient for a message broker where removing delivered messages is very frequent? This requires WSO2 Message Broker to ship leveldb. leveldb ( https://github.com/google/leveldb) has native distributions for platforms. AFAIC this will take away platform

[Architecture] Proposed Key Schema for LevelDB Store of Message Broker

Hi all, I am working on a project to replace the current RDBMS based database of the message broker store with a file based database system. Currently the implementation is carried out in LevelDB which is a key-value based data store. The following is an explanation of suggested key schema for

[Architecture] Proposed Key Schema for LevelDB Store of Message Broker

Hi all, I am working on a project to replace the current RDBMS based database of the message broker store with a file based database system. Currently the implementation is carried out in LevelDB which is a key-value based data store. The following is an explanation of suggested key schema for

Re: [Architecture] Cross Protocol Single Logout

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Harsha Thirimanna wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Piraveena Paralogarajah < > pirave...@wso2.com> wrote: > >> Hi Maninda, >> >> In OpenID Connect, there are three ways for SLO. >> >>1. OIDC Session management (see spec >>

Re: [Architecture] Securing Product Apis and Product artifacts

We had same kind of implementation in C4 by using tomcat valve instead of filters. May not be same pattern what we expect here.[1] [1] http://harshathirimanna.blogspot.com/2016/11/ authentication-authorization-common.html And as I remember we did that to C5 as well by Ruwan using C4

Re: [Architecture] Cross Protocol Single Logout

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Piraveena Paralogarajah wrote: > Hi Maninda, > > In OpenID Connect, there are three ways for SLO. > >1. OIDC Session management (see spec >) >2. OIDC Front-channel logout

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

Hi all, Thanks for testing and verifying the WSO2 IoT Server RC4. We are closing the vote now. This vote has passed with 15 (+1)s and 0 (-1)s. Therefore we are proceeding with the WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 release. 15 (+1) 0(-1) Regards, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Nirothipan Mehalingam

Re: [Architecture] Cross Protocol Single Logout

Hi Maninda, In OpenID Connect, there are three ways for SLO. 1. OIDC Session management (see spec ) 2. OIDC Front-channel logout (see spec ) 3. OIDC Back-channel

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

Hi , I have tested the Android Virtual Device Installation with Linux and Mac OS and found no issues. [+] Stable - go ahead and release. Thank you M.Nirothipan On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Milan Perera wrote: > Hi Devs, > > We are pleased to announce the release candidate

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

Hi all, Tested following areas in Linux platform, 1. Sample device types deployment. 2. Connected-Cup device type deployment. 3. Geo fencing artifact deployment *With Super Tenant * Android 1. Device enrollment 2. Device operations (location, ring, lock) 3. Device renaming

[Architecture] Securing Product Apis and Product artifacts

Hi all, We (Prabath, NuwanD, Suho, few IS team members, few analytics team members) had an offline discussion regarding $ Subject. *Problem* With the new rewrite of C5 based products, we have moved from SOAP based backend product APIs to REST APIs. And there needs to be a mechanism to secure

Re: [Architecture] Cross Protocol Single Logout

Hi Sugirjan, How the SLO works with sessions logged in with federated authentication? For example if a user has logged in with Facebook authentication how that user be logged out from the Authentication framework when the user is logged out from Facebook? Does OIDC has some spec to notify the

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

Hi All, I have tested the following functionalities for Android Sense device type. 1. Enrollment 2. Sensor Data publishing and viewing them in device view. 3. Removing device and re-enrolling to a new user. 4. Geo Fencing features. +1 Stable - Go ahead and release. Thanks and Regards, Menaka

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

Hi All, I have tested following functionalities for IOS device type. (v 10.1.1) - Enrolling device with/without ios-agent. - Operation execution (Device lock, Ring, Location, Notification, Enterprise-Wipe) - Changing platform configurations. - Passcode and restriction policies.

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

Hi all, I've tested the following for Android Device (Android 6.0 OS) from Admin user. 1. Device enrollment 2. Device operations (Ring, Mute, Message, Change Lock-code, Clear Lock-code, Enterprise-wipe) 3. App installation via App Store. 4. Observe Device status changing. (Active <-> Removed,

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

I tested following: Virtual firealarm (control operations,analytics - realtime & batch) Android Device Mgt(enrollment, ring, message) Device Type creation (HTTP,MQTT) Device pushing data (via API) No blockers were found. [+] Stable - Go ahead and release. Thanks, Sumedha On Mon, Aug 14, 2017

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

Hi all, Tested following areas on Windows and Mac with an Android device. - Device enrollment - Push notifications - Device grouping - Device location - Geo Fencing - Device status update - Device search - Operations - Policy - App install Also, verified bug fixes

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

Hi all, I tested the below mentioned as a super tenant user and tenant admin: 1. User Management 2. Policy Managment 3. Role and Permission Managment 4. Configuration Managment. 5. IOS Device enrollment and policy publishing 6. VFL Enrollment and Analytics 7. Android mobile

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] [VOTE] Release of WSO2 IoT Server 3.1.0 RC version 4

Hi, I have tested followings in Linux and windows platforms, - Android mobile device enrollment and operations - Android policy compliance - Geo fencing alert generation - Device grouping - Enterprise App installation and scheduled app installation from mobile app store No

Re: [Architecture] Multiple runtime support for C5 based products

Hi Thusitha, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Thusitha Thilina Dayaratne < thusit...@wso2.com> wrote: > Hi Jayanga, > > From the beginning of C5, we tried to achieve a clear separation between, >> User(Custom) space and Server space. >> IMO, having just a single deployment directory (for both

Re: [Architecture] Multiple runtime support for C5 based products

Hi Jayanga, >From the beginning of C5, we tried to achieve a clear separation between, > User(Custom) space and Server space. > IMO, having just a single deployment directory (for both custom and server > artifacts) won't help to maintain that separation. We are having 2 deployment directories.