cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: StrategyPriority changes w/ Spring Changes
Date Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:23:56 GMT
Frankly, I don't really care, I'll just change it to how it was
before.  I'll remove the get methods that return a collection.

Darren

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:12 PM, SuichII, Christopher
<Chris.Suich@netapp.com> wrote:
> If there are arguments against it, then lets keep the discussion going. I’m fine with
sorting as well - it was requested by someone else to optimize this. However, just to play
devil’s advocate: where would you need a sorted list of strategies rather than just needing
the best fit?
>
> --
> Chris Suich
> chris.suich@netapp.com
> NetApp Software Engineer
> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>
> On Oct 23, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So your asking to not use the sorting logic and instead do the style of
>>
>> Priority highestPriority = Priority.CANT_HANDLE;
>> Priority priority = strategy.canHandle(...);
>> if (priority.ordinal() > highestPriority.ordinal()) {
>>    highestPriority = priority;
>>    strategyToUse = strategy;
>> }
>>
>> The problem I have with the above style is that its never possible to
>> get a sorted collection of strategies.  That logic just allow you to
>> get the best match.  If you look at
>> org.apache.cloudstack.engine.subsystem.api.storage.StorageStrategyFactory
>> there are methods to get the first item and a collection.  In terms of
>> efficiently, it doesn't matter, were really optimizing a couple of CPU
>> cycles.
>>
>> Darren
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, SuichII, Christopher
>> <Chris.Suich@netapp.com> wrote:
>>> Take a look at revision 3 of my changes here:
>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/14522/diff/3/#index_header
>>>
>>> The changes I made were due to discussion in the reviews. It should be
>>> simpler, cleaner and more efficient logic than using comparators.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Suich
>>> chris.suich@netapp.com
>>> NetApp Software Engineer
>>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't follow your question.  I have time today.  What would
>>> you like me to do?  As it stands right now, what is on master, I'm not
>>> aware of any issues.
>>>
>>> Darren
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM, SuichII, Christopher
>>> <Chris.Suich@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Darren,
>>>
>>> Would you be able to look into copy the logic back into your refactoring
>>> today or tomorrow? If not, I may be able to in the morning.
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>> --
>>> Chris Suich
>>> chris.suich@netapp.com
>>> NetApp Software Engineer
>>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:56 PM, SuichII, Christopher <Chris.Suich@netapp.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My understanding is that it is still a work in progress to get those test
>>> back running. Is this correct, Edison?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Suich
>>> chris.suich@netapp.com
>>> NetApp Software Engineer
>>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I fixed all the compilation errors in engine/storage/integration-test.
>>> I don't know how to run those test though, so I can't validate the
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> Darren
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, SuichII, Christopher
>>> <Chris.Suich@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep. I’m running on a clean master.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Suich
>>> chris.suich@netapp.com
>>> NetApp Software Engineer
>>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay let me look at that.  Are you 100% sure your looking at a clean version
>>> of master?
>>>
>>> Darren
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 1:17 PM, "SuichII, Christopher" <Chris.Suich@netapp.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Er, sorry. That was poorly worded on my part. Some classes, like
>>> SnapshotTest.java and all the storage providers, did not get updated
>>> references to your refactoring. They still reference
>>> StrategyPriority.pickStrategy(), etc. Additionally, I changed the
>>> pickStrategy() logic from using a comparator to looping over the list once
>>> keeping a reference to the best result. This logic was lost in the merge.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Suich
>>> chris.suich@netapp.com
>>> NetApp Software Engineer
>>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The transaction API was changed in the merge.  I could have maybe
>>> missed updating a class.  Let me check.   When you said "It looks like
>>> the changes from us didn’t make it through your merge at all," can you
>>> point to something specific that got lost?
>>>
>>> Darren
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM, SuichII, Christopher
>>> <Chris.Suich@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And it looks like some of your changes may have not merged correctly. I’m
>>> getting compile errors like:
>>>
>>> The method close() is undefined for the type Transaction
>>>
>>> This shouldn’t have come from our merge.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Suich
>>> chris.suich@netapp.com
>>> NetApp Software Engineer
>>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris, Edison,
>>>
>>> You guys just committed 'Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot.'  At
>>> the same time I was merging both my txn-refactor and
>>> spring-modularization branches.  They are really tricky merges and
>>> each time I have to rebase it takes awhile to figure out.  Anyhow,
>>> your change + my changes breaks master.  So I quickly rebased rb14823
>>> and committed to master.  rb14823 is the patch that makes the Storage
>>> Strategies work with my spring work plus clean up some things.
>>> Additionally I found out you can't inject List<SnapshotStrategy> to
>>> the Snapshot object, so we really have to go with my change to
>>> centralize the ownership of the strategies to a single class.
>>>
>>> Can you please pull master and revalidate that I didn't break
>>> anything, if its not too much of a pain.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Darren
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message