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 23:10:41 GMT
Le 3/14/12 11:56 PM, Selcuk AYA a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<>  wrote:
>> 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 :
>>>> - TXN_BEGIN
>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
> usually email communication and waiting around a day for an email
> reply should be fine but OK lets discuss this case on IRC.
Considering the 9h lag, I totally agree. I just suggested that if you'd 
like having a IRC convo to clarify some of the technical point, I'll be 
around, but this is not mandatory. Here, it's totally your call, and 
frankly, I would favor email echanges over IRC.

Emmanuel Lécharny

View raw message