Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-esme-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 701 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2009 21:22:02 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Dec 2009 21:22:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 45362 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2009 21:22:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-esme-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 45304 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2009 21:22:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list esme-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 45294 invoked by uid 99); 13 Dec 2009 21:22:02 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:22:02 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of vdichev@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.216 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.216] (HELO mail-fx0-f216.google.com) (209.85.220.216) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:22:00 +0000 Received: by fxm8 with SMTP id 8so2954615fxm.27 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:21:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=osYl9DlCdTXIq36erGZqn+hsVUREzAYxfesLLBZRwtM=; b=NW1zvKSFuTZ3iEpq0vjR65aQnvF8NxF2eZ9QAiGksPn3/OQf9zg/ENTPcWuv6+g8n+ t0eDmYLk/mcAZSHClvf0JLVz6/54JsVH/vWgmnHqPPbpWgiLst87zO23WtmgAJH1gsL+ 9r4pjRveLgGIFDvTEkmQu/1Lkwt/O7IABE70E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Kuqy9OqztQG+OBF7ROC3h/mzq4EaStloX7Dr3JY3THvWNkTP0fWTXC/JwEKPR0JdvB xLtrXCKivnpH4QSjuSxqtzyLJDXvALEHpix9a9tHyCJNAfw1Ko18MCq6aLvxN6Hg4TiV /5ckXDyt4/2mUIdJrCbep4OVqIlqX7UkPNfE4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: vdichev@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.64.21 with SMTP id r21mr1263653muk.13.1260739296834; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:21:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <68f4a0e80912130909n231e47f2v220979dcb971f5d1@mail.gmail.com> <68f4a0e80912131207x7ae73424h2289aede80b63251@mail.gmail.com> <68f4a0e80912131244t504fa0bbx2e429d7c4ba1d61f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:21:36 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 69d84c00a7a0d89f Message-ID: Subject: Re: 12sprints integration works From: Vassil Dichev To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 As a rule of thumb, if desired functionality sounds too specific for the current scenario and isn't likely to be required for other scenarios, then an external bot might indeed be more appropriate. If changing the functionality breaks existing use cases or makes them harder to use, that's an additional design smell. Regarding loops, it comes to this: a loop is not easy to avoid if a message is sent from one source(action) and received back from another. Looping as a problem occurred also in the scala interpreter action, but it was fairly easy to avoid because there were ways to detect that the message came as a result of this same action.