Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

A brief discussion took place regarding moving forward with the migration-utils, and preparing of tickets for some focused sprint work.

The following points were made:

  • authz migration should probably just entail moving over the XACML as is
  • the command line tool should use spring, and possible just be a spring boot application rather than a camel component
  • Ben could be convinced to work on service migration
  • discussion of audit log
    • much of this is redundant for versioned datastreams
    • migrate to premis?
    • wait for the audit service discussions to come up with something
  • we should use the same property name to preserve historic modifcation dates as the hydra effort
  • we should consider and design the interaction with the command line tool if that will be our ultimate goal

 

  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. the command line tool should use spring, and possible just be a spring boot application rather than a camel component

    Does the above statement imply that the migration-utils workflow will not tie into a camel flow?

  2. Unknown User (daniel-dgi)

    It's possible, depending on the status of a java fcrepo4 client library that's out there.  It came up as an option due to the fact that the main benefit of using camel would be the fcrepo-camel component, and if the client library was functional then spring's batch framework could also be used and the whole project could be kept as a single command line tool.  No decisions were made, however.

    I think if the other client lib is in a less finished state than the fcrepo-camel component, then that makes camel the winner.