commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Schofield <sean.schofi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:02:18 GMT
Well the vote results are in and the grand total is -0.5.  I'm not
sure how to count Craig's -0 and Joe's +0 but I assume they cancel
each other out ;-)

More importantly I am not seeing any +1 votes for this and since this
is a group effort I will defer to the wishes of the group.  I will go
ahead and use the DispatchChain code in my personal project and just
refactor so its not using the common chain package structure.  I
suggest we keep it around for a while in case the others have a change
in heart (since it took me a while to write the test cases, etc.)  I
think there is a Bugzilla issue on this so we can resolve that Won't
Fix and I have the original code archived in my GMail account.  So
there it will rest until called upon for official apache duty ;-)

No hard feelings on this end.  I prefer honest and direct
communication and I'd rather reach a decision (in this case "no thank
you") than keep the issue going forever out of fear of hurting
someone's feelings (in this case, mine.)  Thanks for the fair and
professional evaluation of the idea.

Regards,
sean



On Apr 1, 2005 11:00 AM, Joe Germuska <Joe@germuska.com> wrote:
> At 9:06 AM -0600 4/1/05, NetSQL wrote:
> >Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >
> >Mutiple methods is wrong.
> >KISS!
> >
> >Single object should do single thing.
> 
> Well, I don't totally agree with this.  I'm a big advocate of
> DispatchAction, and I didn't feel like I had the time to craft the
> argument to Sean's assertion that if DispatchChain didn't belong then
> DispatchAction didn't either.
> 
> On the other hand, this may be the best statement (or paraphrase, as
> it were, since I don't have the original):
> At 9:17 PM -0800 3/31/05, Martin Cooper wrote:
> >Also, as William mentions, the lack of interchangeability is
> >significant; you can't drop a regular command into such a chain and
> >have it work, nor can you take one of these commands and drop it into
> >a regular chain and expect the right thing to happen.
> 
> you can drop a DispatchCommand in anywhere, as long as you configure
> it properly (and many commands need some external configuration.)
> 
> I still don't really have enough time to argue vociferously about it
> either way....
> 
> 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


Mime
View raw message