commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [chain] Apache Chain v2 Proof of Concept
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:32:04 GMT
I misunderstood CHAIN-53 then.

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Elijah Zupancic <elijah@zupancic.name> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I haven't heard any discussion about a pending refactor to chain in
> the last month (when I proposed the patch). Could you tell me/us more
> about any plans for a major refactoring?
>
> Thanks,
> -Elijah
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:
>> I may have missed the discussion... but are we releasing a Java 5
>> genericized version first before major refactoring?
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Elijah Zupancic <elijah@zupancic.name> wrote:
>>> Hi Simo,
>>>
>>> Yes, the patch is binary compatible with the old chain with one exception:
>>>
>>> org.apache.commons.chain.web.servlet.ServletHeaderValuesMap on line
>>> 97. Previously the API was returning Set<Entry<String,
>>> Enumeration<String>> when by all indications it actually should have
>>> been returning Set<Entry<String, String[]>>. I believe that I fixed
a
>>> previously undiscovered bug there.
>>>
>>> Right now, none of the unit tests are using generics and they all
>>> pass. So, I assume that we have a backwards compatible API.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Elijah
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Simone Tripodi
>>> <simonetripodi@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Elijah,
>>>> looking at the patch, it seems that v2.0 is binary compatible to old
>>>> chain, right?
>>>> I mean, if in a my hypothetical application I would upgrade to v2
>>>> (generics a part) old code should continue working, right?
>>>> TIA, and count also on me!
>>>> All the best, have a nice day!
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Elijah Zupancic <elijah@zupancic.name>
wrote:
>>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the advice. I've created a JIRA issue for the patch
>>>>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CHAIN-53) and signed and
>>>>> submitted the CLA.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for JSF, I believe I made a mistake in changing the API to use the
>>>>> office jsf API instead of the myfaces API that was previously being
>>>>> used. I went that route because I couldn't find a 2.0 version of the
>>>>> faces api in the Maven repo, but it looks like it is available on the
>>>>> myfaces project site, so I will revert the dependency to using myfaces
>>>>> and downgrade to 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start work on migrating the test cases / mocking to a newer junit
>>>>> and mockito, when I know that the changes will be accepted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again for the help!
>>>>>
>>>>> -Elijah
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, Elijah--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I am neither a develop nor even a user of chain, so my comments
will
>>>>>> be high-level.  Firstly, by all means upgrade to whatever JUnit
4
>>>>>> release version you like, e.g. 4.8.2.  Next, I personally am a big
fan
>>>>>> of Mockito, so no complaints here on that account.  I can't guarantee
>>>>>> noone else would complain, but [chain] has been fairly unloved for
a
>>>>>> good while.  As for JSF 2.1, is there something this achieves that
>>>>>> wouldn't be equally well accomplished by simply upgrading to 2.0?
>>>>>> This would give [chain]'s JSF support (which I personally hadn't
>>>>>> realized existed) a potentially better combination of
>>>>>> doing-things-that-couldn't-easily-be-done-with-older-APIs vs. broadest
>>>>>> possible applicability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, as you don't seem to be a committer your final submission
in
>>>>>> this regard would be best recommended in the form of a JIRA issue,
and
>>>>>> your patches in (albeit large) patch form.  In addition to this,
the
>>>>>> scope of these changes indicates it best IMO that you submit an
>>>>>> Individual Contributor License Agreement governing your contributions
>>>>>> to the ASF.  See http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas for details
on
>>>>>> how to do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards and welcome,
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Elijah Zupancic <elijah@zupancic.name>
wrote:
>>>>>>> I've just finished my proof of concept for an upgrade to Apache
chain.
>>>>>>> I would love to get this into a svn branch. I'm not quite sure
what
>>>>>>> the procedure is to do that, but the code can be found here for
>>>>>>> review:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://elijah.zupancic.name/projects/commons-chain-v2-proof-of-concept.tar.gz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And here is a diff:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://elijah.zupancic.name/projects/uber-diff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At a high level, I have incorporated the following features in
this
>>>>>>> proof of concept:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Global upgrade to the JDK 1.5
>>>>>>> * Added @Override annotations
>>>>>>> * Upgraded to the Servlet 2.5 API
>>>>>>> * Upgraded to the Faces 2.1 API
>>>>>>> * Upgraded to the Portlet 2.0 API
>>>>>>> * Upgraded the Maven Parent POM version
>>>>>>> * Added generics support to Command so that Command's API looks
like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> public interface Command<T extends Context> {
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>    boolean execute(T context) throws Exception;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Servlet and Portlet packages now provide Genericized APIs.
>>>>>>> * All dicey changes have been marked with a comment with my name:
(elijah)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More or less the work to updated Chain was straight forward albeit
>>>>>>> time consuming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If everyone is on board for this update, I would like to upgrade
the
>>>>>>> test cases to use a new version of JUnit. However, this leads
to a few
>>>>>>> questions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * What version of JUnit should I use?
>>>>>>> * Would it be ok to use Mockito for mocking instead of the home
grown
>>>>>>> mocking classes already contained in the project?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think. Getting this far has been
a couple
>>>>>>> weeks worth of on and off work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> -Elijah
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message