Re: [Architecture] Review DB table audit fields for API Manager C5

2016-10-11 Thread Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
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

Re: [Architecture] Review DB table audit fields for API Manager C5

2016-10-11 Thread Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
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

Re: [Architecture] Review DB table audit fields for API Manager C5

2016-10-11 Thread Lahiru Cooray
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 >

Re: [Architecture] Review DB table audit fields for API Manager C5

2016-10-11 Thread Abimaran Kugathasan
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

Re: [Architecture] User-Core Unique User Id Implementation

2016-10-11 Thread Ishara Karunarathna
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

Re: [Architecture] Review DB table audit fields for API Manager C5

2016-10-11 Thread Lakmali Baminiwatta
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 >

Re: [Architecture] Feature requirements on IS to be the sole Key Manager of API Manager

2016-10-11 Thread Ishara Karunarathna
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

Re: [Architecture] User-Core Unique User Id Implementation

2016-10-11 Thread Kishanthan Thangarajah
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

[Architecture] User-Core Unique User Id Implementation

2016-10-11 Thread Akalanka Pagoda Arachchi
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

Re: [Architecture] Feature requirements on IS to be the sole Key Manager of API Manager

2016-10-11 Thread Nuwan Dias
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

Re: [Architecture] Feature requirements on IS to be the sole Key Manager of API Manager

2016-10-11 Thread Abimaran Kugathasan
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

Re: [Architecture] Speedup traffic serving process in scalable/ containerized deployment

2016-10-11 Thread Sanjeewa Malalgoda
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.)

Re: [Architecture] Speedup traffic serving process in scalable/ containerized deployment

2016-10-11 Thread Lakmal Warusawithana
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

Re: [Architecture] Speedup traffic serving process in scalable/ containerized deployment

2016-10-11 Thread Lakmal Warusawithana
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

Re: [Architecture] Speedup traffic serving process in scalable/ containerized deployment

2016-10-11 Thread Manjula Rathnayake
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

Re: [Architecture] Speedup traffic serving process in scalable/ containerized deployment

2016-10-11 Thread Lakmal Warusawithana
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

Re: [Architecture] Speedup traffic serving process in scalable/ containerized deployment

2016-10-11 Thread Sanjeewa Malalgoda
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

Re: [Architecture] Review DB table audit fields for API Manager C5

2016-10-11 Thread Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
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

Re: [Architecture] Speedup traffic serving process in scalable/ containerized deployment

2016-10-11 Thread Imesh Gunaratne
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

Re: [Architecture] Review DB table audit fields for API Manager C5

2016-10-11 Thread Sanjeewa Malalgoda
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

Re: [Architecture] Review DB table audit fields for API Manager C5

2016-10-11 Thread Abimaran Kugathasan
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

Re: [Architecture] Feature requirements on IS to be the sole Key Manager of API Manager

2016-10-11 Thread Bhathiya Jayasekara
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

Re: [Architecture] Feature requirements on IS to be the sole Key Manager of API Manager

2016-10-11 Thread Abimaran Kugathasan
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

[Architecture] Review DB table audit fields for API Manager C5

2016-10-11 Thread Uvindra Dias Jayasinha
*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*

Re: [Architecture] Feature requirements on IS to be the sole Key Manager of API Manager

2016-10-11 Thread Nuwan Dias
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 >>