Question :-)On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:with the POC for agents done (APNs), I will continue the work, to shrink the "CORE" part of the UPS, using Swarm, JPA, CDI and JAX-RS fractionsspeaking of the "CORE" part ... I think... the simplified push models will allow us, to also come up w/ a different and simpler data model.So... Let's say the UPS2 would be a bit different (POC in progress), I think the really important bit is that the "important" data (e.g PushApps/Variants and, of course, devices) can be exported from old DB and 'transformed' to new DB.Sounds good?Our current analytics, is something, I'd like to revisit. But not 100% sure yet, but I do see some option, based on lessons learned.If these data bits are not portable, I'd not cry a river - compared to a case where "device metadata" would be lost (which is IMO a no-go)Thoughts ?-MOn Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:here is the proposal:On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:Hi, Davethanks for the feedbackOn Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:16 PM, David Martin <davmarti@redhat.com> wrote:For RHMAP 3/4, the Studio was originally part of a single jar/war
(millicore). It did have a jsp for delivering the index.html (which
wrote a bunch of inline javascript)
The studio was then decoupled from the war file as a separate war
(fh-studio). However, it still had an index.jsp, but called back to
the 'core' to get some of the info needed for that.
This was eventually refactored into a node.js express app (fh-ngui)
and deployed completely separately. It still made calls back to the
core to get some config/user info.
The main benefit I found was the UI could be progressed at a faster
pace as the local development tooling could be tailored better. (just
run the UI server & hook up to an existing core somewhere)
However, it introduced overhead with the addition of a new deployable component.that's also some of the points. We already have the development moved over to a different repo.We currently just stick it's JAR (which might be silly) into the WAR.
This was all in a pre-containers world, but it was migrated to a
container world (on openshift).
We never went as far as nginx serving static content, but I could see
that as a logical progression.
It would probably mean a smaller footprint overall.cool. It's something I will include in the proposal (not done any testings).Currently I look removing some good parts of the WAR file for the push delivery itself.current approach, which I do like so far, is having each "network" run as a java process, that wires the "send bits" (e.g. for iOS) togehter via messaging (kafka).Here is a metrics screenshot:code is located here:It's borrowing some concenpts/code from core UPS. but is really no http server - just a standard Main, which has a kafka consumer, plugged via ENVs.I currently deploy to Openshift using the fabric8-maven-plugin (fmp), that generates all all (docker file, k8s/oc yamls).I will do the same for FCM.Once that all is done, we have no "sending" code in the UPS, and we can move than the UPS itself to WF-Swarm, for a migration to a simpler develipment/deployment model (and perhaps some more modules in the longer run)Proposing:* fcm-sender.jar (in container)* apns-sender.jar (in container)* UPS move to Swarm* UI in nginx
> --
On 30 January 2018 at 19:40, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> right now, we have the static resources of the admin ui build to a JAR file
> and a "node tgz". Currently, in the community, we use the bundled JAR and
> deployed to the UPS WAR file. So far, so good
>
> For our modularization I was thinking at different options:
>
> * WildFly Swarm w/ just static (WAR) resources
> * Node.js/Express app
> * Ngnix container, just serviing the content
>
> I've tested 1) I was wondering if we might - for some better resource
> utilization might just go w/ Ngnix, and deploy the static resources of the
> admin UI to there?
>
> How do other think about breaking the UPS down to different technologies and
> aspects?
>
> -Matthias
>
> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/unifiedpush-admin-ui
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> github: https://github.com/matzew
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Aerogear" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to aerogear+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to aerogear@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aerogear/CAAg5f2Qi6Fwj5FPq .-VdBEw3Ro_pq4FwqJpPiyGbmj0cEJr fv7Q%40mail.gmail.com
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Aerogear" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to aerogear+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to aerogear@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aerogear/CADvBQ45yhH_-%2BZ .2gKsU-agjv2ucngsgUgo66-dQ7Mdyo MuDinw%40mail.gmail.com
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .
----