Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi Vidura, On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Vidura Nanayakkara wrote: > Hi All, > > We can create a tempory branch out from the master in Carbon Kernel [1] > , merge Lakshman's PR to that > branch and then move it to the Carbon SecVault

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi All, We can create a tempory branch out from the master in Carbon Kernel [1] , merge Lakshman's PR to that branch and then move it to the Carbon SecVault [2] (not the master branch - we need to create another new

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi all, On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Lakshman Udayakantha wrote: > Hi Imesh, > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Imesh Gunaratne wrote: > >> Hi Vidura, >> >> I think it would be better if we can first move the secure vault code >> from carbon-kernel

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi Imesh, On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Imesh Gunaratne wrote: > Hi Vidura, > > I think it would be better if we can first move the secure vault code from > carbon-kernel repository to the new repository with commit history and then > apply the changes you have done.

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi Imesh, *I think it would be better if we can first move the secure vault code from carbon-kernel repository to the new repository with commit history and then apply the changes you have done. Otherwise, we will loose all history.* +1. We should move the secure vault out of carbon kernel

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi Vidura, I think it would be better if we can first move the secure vault code from carbon-kernel repository to the new repository with commit history and then apply the changes you have done. Otherwise, we will loose all history. I had a chat with Lakshman on this and it seems like he has

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Thusitha Thilina Dayaratne < thusit...@wso2.com> wrote: > Rather than having a separate repo for utils I'll look into the > possibility of moving that to a separate component (same level as core) > without having cyclic dependencies. If that is possible then we

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi Vidura, On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Imesh Gunaratne wrote: > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Thusitha Thilina Dayaratne < > thusit...@wso2.com> wrote: > >> Rather than having a separate repo for utils I'll look into the >> possibility of moving that to a separate

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Rather than having a separate repo for utils I'll look into the possibility of moving that to a separate component (same level as core) without having cyclic dependencies. If that is possible then we can pack that as a new feature or core feature itself. Otherwise lets move that to a separate

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi Vidura, On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Vidura Nanayakkara wrote: > Hi all, > > Myself, Lakshman and Kishanthan had a discussion related to the above > matter and came to a conclusion that we need to have a separate repo for > kernel-utils. Moving kernel utilities out of

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi Niranjan, Thanks for pointing this out. +1 for having importFeatureDef to Carbon-secvault in the carbon config feature. On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Niranjan Karunanandham wrote: > Hi Vidura, > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Vidura Nanayakkara >

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi Vidura, On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Vidura Nanayakkara wrote: > Hi, > > I am in the process of moving Carbon Configuration and Secure Vault from > Carbon Kernel [7] repository. > Both these components will support OSGi mode as

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi all, Myself, Lakshman and Kishanthan had a discussion related to the above matter and came to a conclusion that we need to have a separate repo for kernel-utils. Moving kernel utilities out of carbon kernel was previously discussed in order to provide Balerina and MSF4J standalone mode with

Re: [Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi all, Considering the Carbon Secure Vault's OSGi and Non-OSGi implementations we are planning to: - Get the secure vault YAML configuration from the runtime in the OSGi mode: This is because we can have multiple runtimes and each runtime can have different configurations. - Get the

[Architecture] [C5] Moving Carbon Configuration and Carbon Sec-Vault to 2 Separate Repositories (Removing from Kernel)

Hi, I am in the process of moving Carbon Configuration and Secure Vault from Carbon Kernel [7] repository. Both these components will support OSGi mode as well as non-OSGi mode. Following are the reasons behind moving these into new repositories. Reasons