commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig McClanahan <craig...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:59:27 GMT
Personally, I'm leaning towards -0 (multiple "execute" methods per
chain seem to encourage the wrong behavior -- combining lots of
functionality into a single command versus splitting it up into fine
grained reusable chunks), but won't veto it if others think the
functionality is desireable.

Craig


On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:50:28 -0600, Joe Germuska <Joe@germuska.com> wrote:
> At 2:42 PM -0500 3/31/05, James Mitchell wrote:
> >Sean, I don't mind applying these changes so long as the other
> >committers agree that this would be a good fit.  Last I heard, there
> >are still questions or concerns about adding this.  I have not been
> >able to find the time to look any deeper into this, so I can't argue
> >one way or the other.
> 
> I'm at +0 right now -- I don't feel strongly enough about my earlier
> reservations to put up a fuss.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> >Sorry.
> >
> >
> >--
> >James Mitchell
> >Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
> >Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
> >EdgeTech, Inc.
> >678.910.8017
> >AIM:   jmitchtx
> >Yahoo: jmitchtx
> >MSN:   jmitchell@apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Schofield" <sean.schofield@gmail.com>
> >To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:36 PM
> >Subject: Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
> >
> >>I know its been a while since we discussed this ... but I would like
> >>to bring up the issue of DispatchChain again.  I have a pressing need
> >>for something like this in my current application.  I need to go ahead
> >>and move it into our project codebase or have it added to
> >>commons-chain.  No hard feelings if I cannot convince you that this is
> >>useful.
> >>
> >>I will briefly summarize my arguments again.  The dispatch chain
> >>allows you to compose a chain of commands where the command method can
> >>be something other than execute.  It will always have the same
> >>arguments and it will always be the same for every command in the
> >>chain.  I think the fact that it is always the same method for every
> >>command in the chain is a key point here.  Its still the CoR pattern.
> >>There is nothing special about the name of the execute method, the
> >>pattern just requires a consistent method.
> >>
> >>If you do not accept this line of reasoning then I would suggest that
> >>DispatchLookupCommand be removed from the codebase as well.  I don't
> >>think you can justify one and not the other.  Finally, its in the
> >>generic package so its entirely optional if you don't want to use it.
> >>
> >>I'd like to resolve this ASAP so I can go forward on my project here
> >>at work.  Please give some thought to my arguments.  As I said
> >>earlier, I will accept the decision of the group if the group cannot
> >>be persuaded.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>sean
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:09:11 -0500, Sean Schofield
> >><sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>My original post to bugzilla didn't generate any responses.  I figured
> >>>once I wrote something and started pestering for a commit that would
> >>>get the discussion going ;-)
> >>>
> >>>I will await your guys feedback once you've had a chance to think
> >>>about use cases, etc.
> >>>
> >>>Let me know if you have any questions.
> >>>
> >>>sean
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:37:47 -0600, Joe Germuska <Joe@germuska.com>
wrote:
> >>>>  At 9:20 AM -0800 1/14/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >>>>  >I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
> >>>>  >DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package
--
> >>>>  >I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the
code
> >>>>  >and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
> >>>>
> >>>>  This has been my hesitation too.  Since I haven't yet had a use case
> >>>>  for it, it seems a bit heavy for inclusion in the core library.
> >>>>
> >>>>  I wouldn't veto it, but it's why I have been hesitant.  Like Craig,
I
> >>>>  haven't looked very carefully at it, so I haven't spoken up yet.
> >>>>
> >>>>  Joe
> >>>>
> >>>>  --
> >>>>  Joe Germuska
> >>>>  Joe@Germuska.com
> >>>>  http://blog.germuska.com
> >>>>  "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction"  -The Ex
> >>>>
> >>>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >>>>  For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> --
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com
> http://blog.germuska.com
> "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction"  -The Ex
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message