You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@fineract.apache.org by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com> on 2022/10/21 20:12:04 UTC
Re: Fineract CN current status and pointers
Hi Victor -
I appreciate your contributions and hope that given your expertise in
leveraging the FineractCN code base, that we get you more involved here in
a positive discussion.
Could you describe what you think should be the roadmap for FineractCN?
Currently the code is sitting in an official status of not-released at
Apache. There is a formal release process as you know ==>
https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
Given community progress in updating Fineract1.x and making it more
scalable, and the idea of using Fineract1.x as its own “microservice”, I
think that the FineractCN strategy needs updating. We are considering
Fineract1.x as almost a Microservice and also a strategy of breaking
Fineract1.x into different jars and thus making it more composable. Thus
perhaps we want to consider fineractCN within that context?
I would propose that we collectively define the Minimal Viable Release as a
running instance that can be leveraged by outside firms. This is more of a
framework concept with the ability to register new microservices within
that framework.
Do you think we should modify the description of FineracCN on the wiki?
It does create some potential points of confusion for people coming to the
project.
I understand you’re still trying to get code contributions approved by
partner orgs. While that is ongoing is there a framework idea and approach
we can move forward on?
If I’ve misunderstood, please let me know.
Thanks ,
Jdailey
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 6:36 AM Anjil R Chinnapatlolla <an...@in.ibm.com>
wrote:
> Dear Fineract community members,
>
>
>
> Looking for exploring the current version of Fineract CN and possible
> opportunities to contribute to the project.
>
> Can someone please help me point to the relevant material related to
> Fineract-CN’s current status and if it is being considered for active
> development.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks&Regards,
>
> Anjil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Fineract CN current status and pointers
Posted by Aleksandar Vidakovic <ch...@monkeysintown.com>.
... has been a while for me since I looked at Fineract CN, but will update
myself over the weekend... if you need any assistance concerning (lib)
upgrades, making builds faster and anything related to creating releases
then please let me know. Happy to help if I can.
Having said that: any chance/does it make sense to create a mono repo? At
the moment Fineract CN is dispersed in 30+ Github repos which makes it a
bit hard to find your way around... would make releases also a bit easier.
Cheers,
Aleks
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 10:12 PM James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Victor -
>
> I appreciate your contributions and hope that given your expertise in
> leveraging the FineractCN code base, that we get you more involved here in
> a positive discussion.
>
> Could you describe what you think should be the roadmap for FineractCN?
> Currently the code is sitting in an official status of not-released at
> Apache. There is a formal release process as you know ==>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
>
> Given community progress in updating Fineract1.x and making it more
> scalable, and the idea of using Fineract1.x as its own “microservice”, I
> think that the FineractCN strategy needs updating. We are considering
> Fineract1.x as almost a Microservice and also a strategy of breaking
> Fineract1.x into different jars and thus making it more composable. Thus
> perhaps we want to consider fineractCN within that context?
>
> I would propose that we collectively define the Minimal Viable Release as
> a running instance that can be leveraged by outside firms. This is more of
> a framework concept with the ability to register new microservices within
> that framework.
>
> Do you think we should modify the description of FineracCN on the wiki?
> It does create some potential points of confusion for people coming to the
> project.
>
> I understand you’re still trying to get code contributions approved by
> partner orgs. While that is ongoing is there a framework idea and approach
> we can move forward on?
>
> If I’ve misunderstood, please let me know.
>
> Thanks ,
>
> Jdailey
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 6:36 AM Anjil R Chinnapatlolla <
> anchinna@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Fineract community members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking for exploring the current version of Fineract CN and possible
>> opportunities to contribute to the project.
>>
>> Can someone please help me point to the relevant material related to
>> Fineract-CN’s current status and if it is being considered for active
>> development.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks&Regards,
>>
>> Anjil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Fineract CN current status and pointers
Posted by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>.
mil gracias
adelante!
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 11:22 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
> James,
>
> Let me check the Fineract CN documentation. And also the code base.
>
> When we started the project we found that was matute enough to be a
> starting point and the microservice approach was perfect for the Business
> needs.
>
> It was requiered to train the developer in the blue prints for reaching
> the maturity and of course remove the dependencies of some components like
> provisioners..
> And I think the name of the microservice must be more self descriptive...
> Anubis.. Feign... New comers will be confused.
>
> I would pick up recent improvements from the Fineract 1.x like
> multidatabase, UTC for transactions, spring batch, logging, node aware,
> read only and change the Cassandra to Kafka.
>
> The goal must be the same as fineract but with an easy to use approach.
> When we started to use the Fineract CN it gives the impresión that we need
> a full datacenter with lot of engineers to be deployed.
>
> Because we have go for our own in the payment solution that we have
> developed, can be contributed back.
>
> Although I think that the modular approach for Fineract 1.x is good, the
> microservice approach is better, in this way se dont have circular
> dependencies, JVM versión issues, neither license mix issues. Our "glue"
> for reducing the coding and custom changes have been the api gateways and
> Camunda.
>
> Let me work on the links shared and do the things as the mexican way, with
> resultas and goals reached :)
>
> Keep you in the loop
>
> El vie., 21 de octubre de 2022 3:12 p. m., James Dailey <
> jamespdailey@gmail.com> escribió:
>
>> Hi Victor -
>>
>> I appreciate your contributions and hope that given your expertise in
>> leveraging the FineractCN code base, that we get you more involved here in
>> a positive discussion.
>>
>> Could you describe what you think should be the roadmap for FineractCN?
>> Currently the code is sitting in an official status of not-released at
>> Apache. There is a formal release process as you know ==>
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
>>
>> Given community progress in updating Fineract1.x and making it more
>> scalable, and the idea of using Fineract1.x as its own “microservice”, I
>> think that the FineractCN strategy needs updating. We are considering
>> Fineract1.x as almost a Microservice and also a strategy of breaking
>> Fineract1.x into different jars and thus making it more composable. Thus
>> perhaps we want to consider fineractCN within that context?
>>
>> I would propose that we collectively define the Minimal Viable Release as
>> a running instance that can be leveraged by outside firms. This is more of
>> a framework concept with the ability to register new microservices within
>> that framework.
>>
>> Do you think we should modify the description of FineracCN on the wiki?
>> It does create some potential points of confusion for people coming to the
>> project.
>>
>> I understand you’re still trying to get code contributions approved by
>> partner orgs. While that is ongoing is there a framework idea and approach
>> we can move forward on?
>>
>> If I’ve misunderstood, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks ,
>>
>> Jdailey
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 6:36 AM Anjil R Chinnapatlolla <
>> anchinna@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Fineract community members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking for exploring the current version of Fineract CN and possible
>>> opportunities to contribute to the project.
>>>
>>> Can someone please help me point to the relevant material related to
>>> Fineract-CN’s current status and if it is being considered for active
>>> development.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks&Regards,
>>>
>>> Anjil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Weekly Dev call
Posted by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>.
To continue….
In September we had a call for the ticket cleanup and agreed then to a
MONTHLY call. We skipped in October due to attendance at ApacheCON 2022.
Now that it’s November, I hope to have a scheduled call.
November 17. 8am Pacific (PST )
Please hold .
So, thank you for the prompt Prashant!
And do please introduce yourself.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 8:46 AM James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Prashant Rahulkar
>
> We do not have a weekly dev call. We meet infrequently on zoom. See the
> wiki pages for meetings.
>
> Please CREATE new email threads when going off topic. This is a new
> thread about regular or weekly dev updates or calls.
>
> James
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Re: Weekly Dev call
Posted by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Prashant Rahulkar
We do not have a weekly dev call. We meet infrequently on zoom. See the
wiki pages for meetings.
Please CREATE new email threads when going off topic. This is a new
thread about regular or weekly dev updates or calls.
James
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
RE: Fineract CN current status and pointers
Posted by pr...@riequation.com.
Hello Team,
I would like to know that Fineract execute any weekly developer call, Please share more details.
Thanks,
Prashant Rahulkar.
From: Avik Ganguly <av...@fynarfin.io>
Sent: 02 November 2022 19:02
To: dev@fineract.apache.org
Subject: Re: Fineract CN current status and pointers
Hi Anjil, Victor, Stanley,
The last set of development activities that we did in Fineract CN were identity / access management using Keycloak, removing Eureka to reduce unnecessary complexity and providing helm charts <https://github.com/apache/fineract-cn-docker-compose/tree/master/Fineract-CN-Helm> .
Here are the key issues preventing us from active development on the platform :-
change Cassandra to Kafka
* Or make Cassandra optional for dev / proof of concepts like provisioner (Cassandra does provide a lot of value at scale and auditability and is better than HBase at availability and complexity (but not at consistency))
* Make provisioner optional (Ex:- to make FINCN services interoperable with other architectures)
* Basic event based choreography with Kafka
There are other important things which can be tackled but are not necessarily blockers for active development :-
* Saga implementation in FINCN arch for reference
* Experience / Composite API reference implementation
* Replacing ActiveMQ with Kafka
* Error handling & more documentation for accounting service
* Archive libraries which are not being used by anyone in the community (cheques?, payroll?, teller?, portfolio?)
All of the above raises reasonable doubt regarding the ship of Theseus thought though. But I do believe there is significant value that can be gained in terms of having an OS cloud native non-distributed ledger with a partial community around it.
With best regards,
Avik.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 11:52 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <victor.romero@fintecheando.mx <ma...@fintecheando.mx> > wrote:
James,
Let me check the Fineract CN documentation. And also the code base.
When we started the project we found that was matute enough to be a starting point and the microservice approach was perfect for the Business needs.
It was requiered to train the developer in the blue prints for reaching the maturity and of course remove the dependencies of some components like provisioners..
And I think the name of the microservice must be more self descriptive... Anubis.. Feign... New comers will be confused.
I would pick up recent improvements from the Fineract 1.x like multidatabase, UTC for transactions, spring batch, logging, node aware, read only and change the Cassandra to Kafka.
The goal must be the same as fineract but with an easy to use approach. When we started to use the Fineract CN it gives the impresión that we need a full datacenter with lot of engineers to be deployed.
Because we have go for our own in the payment solution that we have developed, can be contributed back.
Although I think that the modular approach for Fineract 1.x is good, the microservice approach is better, in this way se dont have circular dependencies, JVM versión issues, neither license mix issues. Our "glue" for reducing the coding and custom changes have been the api gateways and Camunda.
Let me work on the links shared and do the things as the mexican way, with resultas and goals reached :)
Keep you in the loop
El vie., 21 de octubre de 2022 3:12 p. m., James Dailey <jamespdailey@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > escribió:
Hi Victor -
I appreciate your contributions and hope that given your expertise in leveraging the FineractCN code base, that we get you more involved here in a positive discussion.
Could you describe what you think should be the roadmap for FineractCN? Currently the code is sitting in an official status of not-released at Apache. There is a formal release process as you know ==> https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
Given community progress in updating Fineract1.x and making it more scalable, and the idea of using Fineract1.x as its own “microservice”, I think that the FineractCN strategy needs updating. We are considering Fineract1.x as almost a Microservice and also a strategy of breaking Fineract1.x into different jars and thus making it more composable. Thus perhaps we want to consider fineractCN within that context?
I would propose that we collectively define the Minimal Viable Release as a running instance that can be leveraged by outside firms. This is more of a framework concept with the ability to register new microservices within that framework.
Do you think we should modify the description of FineracCN on the wiki? It does create some potential points of confusion for people coming to the project.
I understand you’re still trying to get code contributions approved by partner orgs. While that is ongoing is there a framework idea and approach we can move forward on?
If I’ve misunderstood, please let me know.
Thanks ,
Jdailey
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 6:36 AM Anjil R Chinnapatlolla <anchinna@in.ibm.com <ma...@in.ibm.com> > wrote:
Dear Fineract community members,
Looking for exploring the current version of Fineract CN and possible opportunities to contribute to the project.
Can someone please help me point to the relevant material related to Fineract-CN’s current status and if it is being considered for active development.
Thanks&Regards,
Anjil
Disclaimer:
Privileged & confidential information is contained in this message (including all attachments). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please destroy this message immediately and kindly notify
the sender by reply e-mail. Any unauthorised use or dissemination of this message in any manner whatsoever, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. This e-mail, including all attachments hereto, (i) is for discussion purposes only and shall not be deemed or construed to be a professional opinion unless expressly stated otherwise, and (ii) is not intended, written or sent to be used, and cannot and shall not be used, for any unlawful purpose. This communication, including any attachments, may not be free of viruses, interceptions or interference, and may not be compatible with your systems. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment to this e-mail. The sender of this e-mail and
Fynarfin Tech Private Limited shall not be liable for any damage that you may sustain as a result of viruses, incompleteness of this message, a delay in receipt of this message or computer problems experienced.
Re: Fineract CN current status and pointers
Posted by Avik Ganguly <av...@fynarfin.io>.
Hi Anjil, Victor, Stanley,
The last set of development activities that we did in Fineract CN were
identity / access management using Keycloak, removing Eureka to reduce
unnecessary complexity and providing helm charts
<https://github.com/apache/fineract-cn-docker-compose/tree/master/Fineract-CN-Helm>
.
Here are the key issues preventing us from active development on the
platform :-
> change Cassandra to Kafka
- Or make Cassandra optional for dev / proof of concepts like
provisioner (Cassandra does provide a lot of value at scale and
auditability and is better than HBase at availability and complexity (but
not at consistency))
- Make provisioner optional (Ex:- to make FINCN services interoperable
with other architectures)
- Basic event based choreography with Kafka
There are other important things which can be tackled but are not
necessarily blockers for active development :-
- Saga implementation in FINCN arch for reference
- Experience / Composite API reference implementation
- Replacing ActiveMQ with Kafka
- Error handling & more documentation for accounting service
- Archive libraries which are not being used by anyone in the community
(cheques?, payroll?, teller?, portfolio?)
All of the above raises reasonable doubt regarding the ship of Theseus
thought though. But I do believe there is significant value that can be
gained in terms of having an OS cloud native non-distributed ledger with a
partial community around it.
With best regards,
Avik.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 11:52 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
> James,
>
> Let me check the Fineract CN documentation. And also the code base.
>
> When we started the project we found that was matute enough to be a
> starting point and the microservice approach was perfect for the Business
> needs.
>
> It was requiered to train the developer in the blue prints for reaching
> the maturity and of course remove the dependencies of some components like
> provisioners..
> And I think the name of the microservice must be more self descriptive...
> Anubis.. Feign... New comers will be confused.
>
> I would pick up recent improvements from the Fineract 1.x like
> multidatabase, UTC for transactions, spring batch, logging, node aware,
> read only and change the Cassandra to Kafka.
>
> The goal must be the same as fineract but with an easy to use approach.
> When we started to use the Fineract CN it gives the impresión that we need
> a full datacenter with lot of engineers to be deployed.
>
> Because we have go for our own in the payment solution that we have
> developed, can be contributed back.
>
> Although I think that the modular approach for Fineract 1.x is good, the
> microservice approach is better, in this way se dont have circular
> dependencies, JVM versión issues, neither license mix issues. Our "glue"
> for reducing the coding and custom changes have been the api gateways and
> Camunda.
>
> Let me work on the links shared and do the things as the mexican way, with
> resultas and goals reached :)
>
> Keep you in the loop
>
> El vie., 21 de octubre de 2022 3:12 p. m., James Dailey <
> jamespdailey@gmail.com> escribió:
>
>> Hi Victor -
>>
>> I appreciate your contributions and hope that given your expertise in
>> leveraging the FineractCN code base, that we get you more involved here in
>> a positive discussion.
>>
>> Could you describe what you think should be the roadmap for FineractCN?
>> Currently the code is sitting in an official status of not-released at
>> Apache. There is a formal release process as you know ==>
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
>>
>> Given community progress in updating Fineract1.x and making it more
>> scalable, and the idea of using Fineract1.x as its own “microservice”, I
>> think that the FineractCN strategy needs updating. We are considering
>> Fineract1.x as almost a Microservice and also a strategy of breaking
>> Fineract1.x into different jars and thus making it more composable. Thus
>> perhaps we want to consider fineractCN within that context?
>>
>> I would propose that we collectively define the Minimal Viable Release as
>> a running instance that can be leveraged by outside firms. This is more of
>> a framework concept with the ability to register new microservices within
>> that framework.
>>
>> Do you think we should modify the description of FineracCN on the wiki?
>> It does create some potential points of confusion for people coming to the
>> project.
>>
>> I understand you’re still trying to get code contributions approved by
>> partner orgs. While that is ongoing is there a framework idea and approach
>> we can move forward on?
>>
>> If I’ve misunderstood, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks ,
>>
>> Jdailey
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 6:36 AM Anjil R Chinnapatlolla <
>> anchinna@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Fineract community members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking for exploring the current version of Fineract CN and possible
>>> opportunities to contribute to the project.
>>>
>>> Can someone please help me point to the relevant material related to
>>> Fineract-CN’s current status and if it is being considered for active
>>> development.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks&Regards,
>>>
>>> Anjil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
--
Disclaimer:
Privileged & confidential information is contained in this
message (including all attachments). If you are not an intended recipient
of this message, please destroy this message immediately and kindly notify
the sender by reply e-mail. Any unauthorised use or dissemination of this
message in any manner whatsoever, in whole or in part, is strictly
prohibited. This e-mail, including all attachments hereto, (i) is for
discussion purposes only and shall not be deemed or construed to be a
professional opinion unless expressly stated otherwise, and (ii) is not
intended, written or sent to be used, and cannot and shall not be used, for
any unlawful purpose. This communication, including any attachments, may
not be free of viruses, interceptions or interference, and may not be
compatible with your systems. You should carry out your own virus checks
before opening any attachment to this e-mail. The sender of this e-mail and
*Fynarfin Tech Private Limited* shall not be liable for any damage that
you may sustain as a result of viruses, incompleteness of this message, a
delay in receipt of this message or computer problems experienced.
Re: Fineract CN current status and pointers
Posted by VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <vi...@fintecheando.mx>.
James,
Let me check the Fineract CN documentation. And also the code base.
When we started the project we found that was matute enough to be a
starting point and the microservice approach was perfect for the Business
needs.
It was requiered to train the developer in the blue prints for reaching the
maturity and of course remove the dependencies of some components like
provisioners..
And I think the name of the microservice must be more self descriptive...
Anubis.. Feign... New comers will be confused.
I would pick up recent improvements from the Fineract 1.x like
multidatabase, UTC for transactions, spring batch, logging, node aware,
read only and change the Cassandra to Kafka.
The goal must be the same as fineract but with an easy to use approach.
When we started to use the Fineract CN it gives the impresión that we need
a full datacenter with lot of engineers to be deployed.
Because we have go for our own in the payment solution that we have
developed, can be contributed back.
Although I think that the modular approach for Fineract 1.x is good, the
microservice approach is better, in this way se dont have circular
dependencies, JVM versión issues, neither license mix issues. Our "glue"
for reducing the coding and custom changes have been the api gateways and
Camunda.
Let me work on the links shared and do the things as the mexican way, with
resultas and goals reached :)
Keep you in the loop
El vie., 21 de octubre de 2022 3:12 p. m., James Dailey <
jamespdailey@gmail.com> escribió:
> Hi Victor -
>
> I appreciate your contributions and hope that given your expertise in
> leveraging the FineractCN code base, that we get you more involved here in
> a positive discussion.
>
> Could you describe what you think should be the roadmap for FineractCN?
> Currently the code is sitting in an official status of not-released at
> Apache. There is a formal release process as you know ==>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
>
> Given community progress in updating Fineract1.x and making it more
> scalable, and the idea of using Fineract1.x as its own “microservice”, I
> think that the FineractCN strategy needs updating. We are considering
> Fineract1.x as almost a Microservice and also a strategy of breaking
> Fineract1.x into different jars and thus making it more composable. Thus
> perhaps we want to consider fineractCN within that context?
>
> I would propose that we collectively define the Minimal Viable Release as
> a running instance that can be leveraged by outside firms. This is more of
> a framework concept with the ability to register new microservices within
> that framework.
>
> Do you think we should modify the description of FineracCN on the wiki?
> It does create some potential points of confusion for people coming to the
> project.
>
> I understand you’re still trying to get code contributions approved by
> partner orgs. While that is ongoing is there a framework idea and approach
> we can move forward on?
>
> If I’ve misunderstood, please let me know.
>
> Thanks ,
>
> Jdailey
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 6:36 AM Anjil R Chinnapatlolla <
> anchinna@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Fineract community members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking for exploring the current version of Fineract CN and possible
>> opportunities to contribute to the project.
>>
>> Can someone please help me point to the relevant material related to
>> Fineract-CN’s current status and if it is being considered for active
>> development.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks&Regards,
>>
>> Anjil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>