cosys-integration vs. cosys-client (inhouse/closed source)

[eidottermihi]

There is already a very feature rich "cosys integration" available with the "cosys-client" (Java SDK for interacting with the "cosys-EAI"): https://git.muenchen.de/cosys/cosys-client (internal only / currently closed source).

We (as in devs @ city of munich) should not maintain two different integrations for the same system without a good reason to do so.

In the long run, I would prefer that we bring the rich feature-set of the cosys-client into the refarch cosys-integration and deprecate the internal/closed source cosys-client - but this should be discussed with the @it-at-m/refarch team and KM55 (current maintainers of cosys-client).

[simonhir]

I think a general point to be discussed is, if libraries of other teams should end up in the refarch-integrations or in separate repositories.
As #128 states that we maintain all integrations, I would more tend to separate repositories and only link them in the docs.
Also the question is if we still build an adapter layer integration for that kind of case.

If we really decide to do it this way, I would remove the Cosys integration almost immediately and refer to the internal one in the docs. Then you would just have to convince the Cosys team to switch to GitHub.