directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Selcuk AYA <ayasel...@gmail.com>
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 22:32:06 GMT
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com> 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
> - a DATA_CONTAINER
> - TXN_COMMIT or TXN_ABORT
>
> 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.


> Thanks !
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>

Mime
View raw message