Hi Chamila,
Yes, we would need to make our Docker (and any other) artifacts follow the
industry accepted standards so that it is easy for users to adopt them.
More complexity means user probably will be discouraged to use our stuff.
As you mentioned, the --squash option is a good way to reduce th
Hi Imesh / all,
Personally, I think the best option going forward is to maintain a single
set of docker image across all platforms. It's true that there is a concern
of users having to do more work, but in reality, user's will have do quite
a lot of config changes such as copying jdbc drivers, cre
WSO2 Installation Experience team is pleased to announce the release of
WSO2 Docker resources for following products.
- WSO2 API Manager 2.1.0
- WSO2 Identity Server 5.4.1
- WSO2 Enterprise Integrator 6.1.1
- WSO2 Stream Processor 4.0.0
Released Artifacts:
- WSO2 Enterprise Integr
Hi folks,
As Prabath mentioned, we have implemented back channel authentication for
using Extensions.
The approach we have used is, we use the commonAuthId cookie which is
issued to *.cloud.wso2.com. The back channel authentication flow is as
follows;
1. Before we redirect to IdP, we check if th
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 to
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 native
> architecture.
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Muhammed Shariq wrote:
&
cific pack. With this
approach, I feel we are moving away from P2 based profiles, so maybe we can
refer to the minimum packs as a "runtime" of product.
Any thoughts, suggestions?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Muhammed Shariq wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If we are to reduce the pack
; file(s). Other repositories (artifacts and osgi) do not have such issue and
> for osgi, we could use the bundles.info file as profile specific at
> descriptor, which will then read by the tool here.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Kishanthan.
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Mu
With regards to the discussion on improving some of the limitations in the
our current product profiles support [1], we had a discussion to rethink
how we can improve the support for running different profiles in C5.
Participants - Lakmal, Azeez, Imesh, Kishanthan, Jayanga, Chandana, Rohan
*Limit
untime.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also if we have profiles, do we also have a global profile which runs
>>>>> all components in one?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, with the above model, there will not be a single profile (or global
10 matches
Mail list logo
