Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C8489F2B for ; Fri, 4 May 2012 11:19:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 25118 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2012 11:19:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 25007 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2012 11:19:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 24998 invoked by uid 99); 4 May 2012 11:19:05 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 May 2012 11:19:05 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of akarasulu@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.178] (HELO mail-we0-f178.google.com) (74.125.82.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 May 2012 11:18:59 +0000 Received: by wera13 with SMTP id a13so2311705wer.37 for ; Fri, 04 May 2012 04:18:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=pKxXPAw4hKp2sVKqQ9PFfDxjNuJto1byHN0l1Eas6uY=; b=sRudNlnv+thO7begUbo22Q4XJsPAKsk1nJDMoiQlp+sEFBAA5Db5fwvMyOhx2+zVtW Bc+VKylP0778R0LhmwvFJfkca++06DFrfF/dcwme3MsBUI7Zuk0AGnm2yNnwZdxkB8KC dLNlk7wrSkpfWmd7S9wges8/cjz5/fjzj6WqWA4oiVpoPEHnB6YGj5vQYH1OFmAf4EN6 EipI5K3VON8Nfa1k17dRZGfkyEwAyMrvgDVJu/zRUKihXx+1W4l2gInkD1QZcus3nK44 XIf9IalnLc23rHIXEcO6mjJyAzP89UoXgHB01aessfy71f9siVut37rentcgmSsdxKKe kOsA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.94.7 with SMTP id cy7mr13732649wib.3.1336130318140; Fri, 04 May 2012 04:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: akarasulu@gmail.com Received: by 10.180.126.97 with HTTP; Fri, 4 May 2012 04:18:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FA3BA0B.7080001@gmail.com> References: <4FA3930D.3000002@gmail.com> <4FA3AAAD.2050404@gmail.com> <4FA3BA0B.7080001@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:18:38 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9j6seSNgKN8ZpUFbd1KU4uLuTg0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Triggers and SPs vs release From: Alex Karasulu To: Apache Directory Developers List , elecharny@apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04440372fc870f04bf3414de X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d04440372fc870f04bf3414de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Emmanuel L=E9charny wr= ote: > Le 5/4/12 12:20 PM, Alex Karasulu a =E9crit : > >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Emmanuel L=E9charny= ** >> wrote: >> >> Le 5/4/12 12:02 PM, Alex Karasulu a =E9crit : >>> >>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Emmanuel L=E9charny>> >**** >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>>> now that trunks is stable and fast, I try to spend some time to fix t= he >>>>> @Ignored Triggers/SP tests. >>>>> >>>>> As we moved away from JNDI, it impacted the associated code, and it w= as >>>>> never fixed. I think it's about time... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For now I advise ignoring the SP and Trigger code fixes. First becau= se >>>>> >>>> the >>>> MVCC code and transaction subsystem will impact the implementation and >>>> we >>>> need to rethink the implementation. After the transaction branch and t= he >>>> OSGi branch are merged in to trunk I think it's a good time to conside= r >>>> 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. --=20 Best Regards, -- Alex --f46d04440372fc870f04bf3414de Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Emmanuel= L=E9charny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 5/4/12 12:20 PM, Alex Karasulu a =E9crit :
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Emmanuel L=E9charny<elecharny@gmail.com>wrot= e:

Le 5/4/12 12:02 PM, Alex Karasulu a =E9crit :

=A0On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Emmanuel L=E9charny<elecharny@gmail.com>**

wrote:

=A0Hi 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...


=A0For now I advise ignoring the SP and Trigger code fixes. First because<= br>
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 n= ot 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<= br> removed the InvocationStack I think or it's not being leveraged. Everyt= hing
should be gutted IMHO.
I can't agree more. And you haven't mentionned the AdministrativeMo= del 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.
=A0


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 iter= ation.


Right let's get a release out with all these new ad= vances and have our users enjoy them. Meanwhile we can focus on these other= efforts and work towards getting out subsequent releases with them include= d.

--
Best Regards,
-- Alex

--f46d04440372fc870f04bf3414de--