directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1300690 - in /directory/apacheds/branches/apacheds-txns: core-api/src/main/java/org/apache/directory/server/core/api/log/ core-api/src/main/java/org/apache/directory/server/core/api/txn/ core-api/src/main/java/org/apache/directory/se
Date Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:51:23 GMT
Le 3/14/12 11:32 PM, Selcuk AYA a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<>  wrote:
>> Le 3/14/12 10:52 PM, Selcuk AYA a écrit :
>>> HI All,
>>> Sorry for the earlier email. I think I owe some explaination on my
>>> part. The reason for my request is purely technical, does not aim at
>>> oss spirit or any other spirit for that matter:
>>> * There are quite a number of files the txn branch is touching.
>>> * There is no file ownership or review process.
>>> combined with the timing limitation, it becomes hard for me to track
>>> all changes and cleanup if necessary. When I am doing my changes and
>>> need to change some existing stuff, I usually try to find the guy who
>>> wrote the code and get an ack from him and this usually helps a lot
>>> because even things that look stupid might have some reason to be
>>> there. Please do the same while changing the txn branch.If this
>>> process is followed, we wont have to discuss spirit hurting through
>>> reverting code.
>> np. We can consider that the branch is your sandbox, and i'll keep it alone,
>> just let me know.
>> Look, I'm not trying to collide with what you are doing, Selcuk. Just trying
>> to add the necessary doco and clarification (ie, logs, formating) to get
>> people used with the code. If the code is not finished yet, and can keep
>> away from it atm, just say so.
>> I'm pretty sure we need to communicate more here to avoid such issues :
>> - telling what's going on through the exposure of a roadmap
>> - being more reactive (like just ack mails even if one does not have time to
>> give a clear answer)
>> Regarding the changed code, let me give you some clue about the reason I did
>> those changes :
>> when you log some LogEdit, the records are stored in a file and will have to
>> be read at some point. The externalizable classes have readExternal()
>> methods which expect the byte[] to contain the expected content. Currently,
>> we can do that if :
>> - we have stored only one type of object (like Entry)
>> - we have stored mixed data in a specific order, which allows the code to
>> deserialize the classes without adding a type.
>> I guess that the intention was to deserialize data expecting the serialized
>> structure will always be :
>> Here, I see one issues : in one case, we won't have any DATA_CONTAINER
>> (specifically when doing a BIND). We won't then be able to distinguish
>> between a TXN_BEGIN/DATA/TXN_COMMIT and a TXN_BEGIN/TXN_COMMIT if we don't
>> have an extra information, the type.
>> Unless there is something that can be used to make this distinction...
>> Can you enlight me here, in cas I'm doing something wrong ?
> I will have a look at the code your tomorrow morning time and let you know.

ok, fine. I'll try to be connected early (like 08:00 CET / 0:00PDT) so 
that we can discuss on IRC. Let me know if that's fine for you.

I'll crash in 15 minutes.

Emmanuel Lécharny

View raw message