directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Selcuk AYA <>
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 22:56:44 GMT
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 :
>>> 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.


> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny

View raw message