On 12 October 2016 at 10:54, Lahiru Cooray wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda
> wrote:
>
>> I think we can manage audit table while still having CREATED_BY,
>> CREATED_TIME,UPDATED_BY, UPDATED_TIME in same tables. So with that
Thanks for the feedback
On 12 October 2016 at 09:33, Abimaran Kugathasan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Lakmali Baminiwatta
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11 October 2016 at 14:40, Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda
wrote:
> I think we can manage audit table while still having CREATED_BY,
> CREATED_TIME,UPDATED_BY, UPDATED_TIME in same tables. So with that
> approach we may never need to do table scan of audit table while fetching
>
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Lakmali Baminiwatta
wrote:
>
>
> On 11 October 2016 at 14:40, Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback, some interesting points were brought up
>>
>> @Abimaran, the problem with maintaining a rigid
Hi Akalanka,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Kishanthan Thangarajah wrote:
> Hi Akalanka,
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Akalanka Pagoda Arachchi <
> darsha...@wso2.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We're implementing the Unique User Id concept in C5 User Core. This
On 11 October 2016 at 14:40, Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, some interesting points were brought up
>
> @Abimaran, the problem with maintaining a rigid structure like old/new
> column is that if a user changes the value of 5 columns at a given time
>
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Nuwan Dias wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the current efforts on moving to C5 based architecture, API Manager
> plans to rely on standalone IS (without installing features) so that it can
> operate as the Key Manager for the API Gateway. In order to
Hi Akalanka,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Akalanka Pagoda Arachchi <
darsha...@wso2.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We're implementing the Unique User Id concept in C5 User Core. This
> evolved as a requirement with the introduction of the Domain model to the
> User Core.
>
> The user domain
Hi All,
We're implementing the Unique User Id concept in C5 User Core. This evolved
as a requirement with the introduction of the Domain model to the User Core.
The user domain model is as follows.
- Users are available in multiple domains.
- Each domain can contain more than one
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Abimaran Kugathasan
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Bhathiya Jayasekara
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Abimaran,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Abimaran Kugathasan
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Bhathiya Jayasekara
wrote:
> Hi Abimaran,
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Abimaran Kugathasan
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Nuwan Dias wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> With the
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana
wrote:
> Further thinking on implementation for k8s, we need to improve in 3 places.
>
> 1.) Need to introduce min=0 for autoscaling policies
> kubectl autoscale rc foo --min=0 --max=5 --inflight-request-count=80
>
> 2.)
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Manjula Rathnayake
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lakmal,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Further thinking on
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Manjula Rathnayake
wrote:
> Hi Lakmal,
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana
> wrote:
>
>> Further thinking on implementation for k8s, we need to improve in 3
>> places.
>>
>> 1.) Need to introduce min=0
Hi Lakmal,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana
wrote:
> Further thinking on implementation for k8s, we need to improve in 3 places.
>
> 1.) Need to introduce min=0 for autoscaling policies
> kubectl autoscale rc foo --min=0 --max=5
Further thinking on implementation for k8s, we need to improve in 3 places.
1.) Need to introduce min=0 for autoscaling policies
kubectl autoscale rc foo --min=0 --max=5 --inflight-request-count=80
2.) Have to config auto scaler for use load balancing factor
(inflight-request-count) - K8S
If we think current solution we proposed for container based deployment
without this hot pool concept still we may need some intelligence at load
balancer level. Isn't it?
Let say i send request to gateway.sanjeewa.info.wso2.com.
Then load balancer should this request comes to gateway. Then
Thanks for the feedback, some interesting points were brought up
@Abimaran, the problem with maintaining a rigid structure like old/new
column is that if a user changes the value of 5 columns at a given time
that would mean 5 different inserts to the table, when in actual fact it
was a single
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda
wrote:
>
> When we do container based deployment standard approach we discussed so
> far was,
>
>- At the first request check the tenant and service from URL and do
>lookup for running instances.
>- If matching
I think we can manage audit table while still having CREATED_BY,
CREATED_TIME,UPDATED_BY, UPDATED_TIME in same tables. So with that
approach we may never need to do table scan of audit table while fetching
updates. So each updates will recorded in separate table while original
table having all
Hi,
What about having one AUDIT table with below schema structure?
ENTRY_ID PK
TABLE_NAME VARCHAR
FIELD_NAME VARCHAR
OLD_VALUEVARCHAR
NEW_VALUE VARCHAR
ACTION_BY VARCHAR
ACTION_TIME VARCHAR
It's rare, that, we have to update all the Columns in a
Hi Abimaran,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Abimaran Kugathasan
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Nuwan Dias wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the current efforts on moving to C5 based architecture, API Manager
>> plans to rely on standalone IS
One more clarification
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Nuwan Dias wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Abimaran Kugathasan
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nuwan,
>>
>> I have some clarifications on this.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Nuwan Dias
*Context*
We have started to look into API Manager's DB design for C5 and want to
evaluate what was done in the past and see if there is room for improvement.
This is specifically to talk about the below audit columns,
CREATED_BY*VARCHAR*
CREATED_TIME*TIMESTAMP*
UPDATED_BY*VARCHAR*
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Abimaran Kugathasan
wrote:
> Hi Nuwan,
>
> I have some clarifications on this.
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Nuwan Dias wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the current efforts on moving to C5 based architecture, API Manager
>>
25 matches
Mail list logo