directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Shared] [Model] What was the reason for removing the schema entity interfaces like AttributeType?
Date Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:29:24 GMT
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/11 9:09 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> That's something I had also noticed a few weeks ago.
>>> See [1].
>>>
>>> I wanted to decouple the SchemaObjects from the SchemaManager, but I
>>> guess I ran into other work and couldn't complete it.
>>>
>>> AFAIR there are around 5 methods in the SchemaObject interface/abstract
>>> class that needed to be removed and added in the SchemaManager utilities.
>>> I'm not sure they are that much used outside of SchemaManager related
>>> classes.
>>>
>>> On the lack of interfaces for schema objects, it's probably a little more
>>> complex to move them back and requires more refactoring from depending
>>> parts.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> SNIP ...
>
>
>> This was a choice, may be not the best one, but it helped me to get this
>> refactoring done.
>
>
> It's not important what's done is done. What can we learn from that is the
> key. Having too many casts is not enough justification to remove these
> interfaces.
>
>
>> Remember that it took me 3 months to get the SchemaManager working fine in
>> the server, with the extra benefit of being usable in Studio, even if
>> Pierre-Arnaud has spent one week to get it working as expected for his need.
>>
>>
> Not saying we did not have gains. You did some great work there. We just
> want to maximize gains. This is not a crucifixion. We made a mistake, let's
> learn from it and move on.  I should have been more vocal at that time but I
> was not so I failed too just as much. But I am trying now. This is the best
> we can all do.
>
> No one can say we're perfect and we don't fall below optimal solutions. Yes
> we fall short sometimes and make the wrong choices. This does not have any
> moral connotation. All of us do that. The key is to learn from them and move
> on.
>
> So what did we learn from this? When in doubt leave the interface alone.
> Additional casting or and extra Java files in a congested package is not
> sufficient justification. We're not always going be able to work communally
> on everything. Otherwise everyone needs to know everything about everything
> right? So if we see each other learning together then we know we're healthy
> which builds trust and confidence.
>
> So let's carry on, this is not a crucifixion. Please let's not insinuate
> that one of us is trying to hit others over the head with a club. That just
> impedes constructive criticism which is important.
>
>  No need to crucify anyone for such things.
>>
>>
> Let's be exact here. Are you saying that you were crucified?
>

I'd like a clear answer to this question.

You seem to be saying this too frequently and on public mailing lists for me
to ignore. The same insinuation last occurring over some IP issue I
discovered with a release. Again crucification was the word used. So either
stop the passive aggressive insinuations or just say what you're thinking
directly: I'm more than willing to work with you to be as gentle as you want
me to be with you.

Thanks,
Alex

Mime
View raw message