Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8577 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2011 17:59:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Mar 2011 17:59:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 77020 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2011 16:12:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 76983 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2011 16:12:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 76976 invoked by uid 99); 8 Mar 2011 16:12:43 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:12:43 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of akarasulu@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.178] (HELO mail-wy0-f178.google.com) (74.125.82.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:12:37 +0000 Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so143272wyj.37 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:12:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=KNFzpmZTjoYx7BxoRntpuDnoSO4dP8+JE45xk7cZXvo=; b=IpqlUfYC9pMAF5DHHVYyMpx4W9JUaoo+vBY5r/eUaQqVnnI/5jKsfvOEPJ0yYmWUaB pVpInpWc+4ki8L0rb+9Z0ceJiZFS9sFR5qYihBdHO9Ke6Y73KiQ591RQe6Yf9jjhkvKM 2e5bOZBIkGNaCVt9siwYt/ePxFkKV9L389cOU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Y4BGDVRTvvMLu3+QBZjHnQmidO7UmkHyZOQ2Fy8c7njAWsraFZDlikk6Hhmg76uZuB tSBC1iBk4MzZCZExOC4rJdwetU4fWJ8LTeYm9RVWswSMJs98j3cfkMkSMUlro+oE+CEv 7FaplVpCSQBVO34/cjt2JmIKIyHj+UjpfUrJQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.187.82 with SMTP id x60mr4233520wem.9.1299600735308; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:12:15 -0800 (PST) Sender: akarasulu@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.51.15 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:12:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D7627EB.3070909@gmail.com> References: <4D7627EB.3070909@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:12:15 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: gJCXAxhBROE3uPO-Z893UxqWoNo Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Shared] [Model] What was the reason for removing the schema entity interfaces like AttributeType? From: Alex Karasulu To: Apache Directory Developers List , elecharny@apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6546da62d8dd5049dfae0b0 --0016e6546da62d8dd5049dfae0b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny 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? We can't have people accusing others of trying to crucifying people every time they give constructive criticism to help put things on track. I hope you understand where I am coming from here. I'm not trying to belittle anyones involvement but just trying to increase efficiency. We have lots of work to do so let's not be too sensitive and carry on with it. Thanks, Alex --0016e6546da62d8dd5049dfae0b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Emmanuel Lecharn= y <elecharny@gm= ail.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 cla= ss that needed to be removed and added in the SchemaManager utilities.
I'm not sure they are that much used outside of SchemaManager related c= lasses.

On the lack of interfaces for schema objects, it's probably a little mo= re complex to move them back and requires more refactoring from depending p= arts.



SNIP ...
=A0
=
This was a choice, may be not the best one, but it helped me to get this re= factoring done.

It's not important wha= t's done is done. What can we learn from that is the key. Having too ma= ny casts is not enough justification to remove these interfaces.=A0
=A0
Remember that it took me 3 mo= nths to get the SchemaManager working fine in the server, with the extra be= nefit of being usable in Studio, even if Pierre-Arnaud has spent one week t= o 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=A0= crucifixion. We made a mistake, let's learn from it and move on. =A0I s= hould 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 cho= ices. This does not have any moral connotation. All of us do that. The key = is to learn from them and move on.=A0

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 abl= e to work communally on everything. Otherwise everyone needs to know everyt= hing 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. Pleas= e let's not insinuate that one of us is trying to hit others over the h= ead with a club. That just impedes constructive criticism which is importan= t.

=A0No need to crucify anyone= for such things.


Let's be exact here. Are you saying that you were c= rucified?=A0

We can't have people accusing oth= ers of trying to crucifying people every time they give constructive critic= ism to help put things on track.

I hope you understand where I am coming from here. I= 9;m not trying to belittle anyones involvement but just trying to increase = efficiency. We have lots of work to do so let's not be too sensitive an= d carry on with it.

Thanks,
Alex

--0016e6546da62d8dd5049dfae0b0--