directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Triggers and SPs vs release
Date Fri, 04 May 2012 11:18:38 GMT
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:

> Le 5/4/12 12:20 PM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<elecharny@gmail.com>**
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Le 5/4/12 12:02 PM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
>>>
>>>  On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny<elecharny@gmail.com
>>> >****
>>>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>>> now that trunks is stable and fast, I try to spend some time to fix the
>>>>> @Ignored Triggers/SP tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> As we moved away from JNDI, it impacted the associated code, and it was
>>>>> never fixed. I think it's about time...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  For now I advise ignoring the SP and Trigger code fixes. First because
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>> MVCC code and transaction subsystem will impact the implementation and
>>>> we
>>>> need to rethink the implementation. After the transaction branch and the
>>>> OSGi branch are merged in to trunk I think it's a good time to consider
>>>> these features again.
>>>>
>>>>  Really, atm, it's just about getting JNDI out of the code.
>>>
>>
>> Well if it's just a matter of getting the tests running yeah it's not a
>> big
>> deal.
>>
>> In terms of the big picture I think all this code needs to be
>> reimplemented. The trigger and SP specifications need to be better
>> defined.
>> Handling chain recursion issues needs to be reconsidered because we've
>> removed the InvocationStack I think or it's not being leveraged.
>> Everything
>> should be gutted IMHO.
>>
> I can't agree more. And you haven't mentionned the AdministrativeModel we
> have to get fixed...
>
>
Right sorry I overlooked that. So this is something we should do all over
from scratch. I think we're all in agreement here.


>
>>
>>  The idea is to have something that works *before* we get the txn code
>>> merged, because then we will have a base to start with.
>>>
>>> Those tests has been @Ignored since 2008 :/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Yeah that's why I don't think it's worth the time to deal with it. We
>> should just focus on the TxN and OSGi side then reimplement it together.
>>
> There is little I can do regarding those thwo things. My idea was to cut a
> release today or tomorrow, in order to have a stable base for the next
> iteration.
>
>
Right let's get a release out with all these new advances and have our
users enjoy them. Meanwhile we can focus on these other efforts and work
towards getting out subsequent releases with them included.

-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Mime
View raw message