Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

Yes we should have separate deployment.properties files and not duplicate the config files. On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Muhammed Shariq wrote: > The issue with packing all configs file according to a particular profile > is that we'll end up packing many duplicate files,

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

The issue with packing all configs file according to a particular profile is that we'll end up packing many duplicate files, which might not be optimal. One way to get around this problem would be to use the ConfigResolver - deployment.properties file introduced in C5 to override only the required

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

I like the idea of providing a descriptor about a profile (describes what artifacts that should be included) and use a tool or a script to create the profile specific runtime pack. But we also need to consider what Sameera mentioned. I see the issue can come only with configuration repo because,

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

Hi. I had a chat with Azeez and Lakmal to discuss some ideas on improving the profile support by taking the Cloud / container architecture into consideration. We discussed an approach similar to Option-2 in the previous mail where we package all artifacts into one distribution and provide a tool

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

Hi, If we are to reduce the pack size to bear minimum and pack only the essential artifacts, we can use one of the following approaches; 1. Build a bear minimum distribution (with only the required jars, config and artifacts) at build time (maven build) 2. Pack all the artifacts into one

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Afkham Azeez wrote: > At runtime, there should be profile specific packs shouldn't have anything > extra other than the bear minimum. This is to make it container friendly as > well. > Yes, reducing image size is critical to support container

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

At runtime, there should be profile specific packs shouldn't have anything extra other than the bear minimum. This is to make it container friendly as well. On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Muhammed Shariq wrote: > Hi folks, > > I had a chat with Sameera and Jayanga on how we

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

Hi folks, I had a chat with Sameera and Jayanga on how we can improve support for managing configurations for a particular profile. We were discussing the possibility of extending the ConfigResolver [1] concept to manage profile specific configurations. With ConfigResolver, we have the ability

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

Hi All, We can categorize all the files which need to be handled by profiles into three groups. *1) OSGi repository * - *Location:* repository/components - *Description:* Contains all the OSGi bundles, dropins artifacts and other required files. This repository is already organized

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Srinath Perera wrote: > I think this happen with ESB NIO transport and Servelt transport for > webapps. ( Nuwan, is there other examples?). > In the regsitry.xml, we configure the indexers and handlers. These again are only required in certain

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

I think this happen with ESB NIO transport and Servelt transport for webapps. ( Nuwan, is there other examples?). On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Kishanthan Thangarajah wrote: > Current issue is that all bundles and artifacts (conf files, webapps) are > common to the

[Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

Current issue is that all bundles and artifacts (conf files, webapps) are common to the server which are shared among all the profiles. We don't have a way to delete and modify them when starting up a profile. One other option is we could pack everything (profile specific artifacts) in the base

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

We proposed an idea to build a pack based on a profile. That will contain only the essential stuff. So rather than starting up a runtime and then loading a profile, you build a pack that contains the bare minimum stuff required. Perhaps we can have a descriptor which describes what non-OSGi stuff

Re: [Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

Smaeera, are these things we can fix? --Srinath On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Nuwan Dias wrote: > Hi, > > This is to raise some concerns over the current server profiles. Although > we are able to control the bundles which are loaded to the runtime based on > the -Dprofile

[Architecture] How can we improve our profiles story?

Hi, This is to raise some concerns over the current server profiles. Although we are able to control the bundles which are loaded to the runtime based on the -Dprofile parameter, we still lack the ability of removing files and modifying configuration files when the server starts on a profile. And