geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: Geronimo ORB progress
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:47:15 GMT
Lars Kühne wrote, On 11/17/2005 10:18 PM:

> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Lars Kühne wrote, On 11/17/2005 3:19 PM:
>>>> On 11/17/05, *Dain Sundstrom* < 
>>>> <>> wrote:
>>>>     +1 Using JIRA for tracking progress of the ORB would be great.
>>>>     [...] I suggest you create an "Add an
>>>>     ORB implementation" issue that can be the parent of all the tasks.
>>> Done, GERONIMO-1198
>> I think that we should make focused jira issues rather than a single 
>> umbrella issue that tracks all work on the CORBA server.  Ideally, 
>> people would put their stake in the ground by writing about the 
>> architectural bit that they are going to implement in the wiki.  Then 
>> follow up with a a single Jira issue that basically marks the bit 
>> that you are going to implement.   File sub-tasks for the patches 
>> that you are submitting.
>> WDYT?
> Alan,
> as Dain suggested this issue is meant to serve as a parent issue for 
> individual subtasks (or rather "incorporates" links?). This, together 
> with using the CORBA component, is meant to serve as a simple method 
> for filtering for individual work items that are open. Inidividual 
> sub-issues would be stuff like "implement 
> ORB.resolve_initial_reference", "allow JMX monitoring of property 
> xyz", "add unit tests for ValueType mashalling" or "document 
> configuration properties".

The problem is that keeping track of the patches, and they will be more 
than one for any issue, becomes a problem because they are tossed in one 
bucket of attachments.  I do not believe that there is a need to capture 
the hierarchy of the architecture in Jira.  A flat list of Jira issues 
with sub-tasks that track individual patches for that issue should be fine..

> I have never used a Wiki as a collaboration tool, so maybe I don't 
> know what I'm missing. Right now I wouldn't know what to write about 
> the above sub-issues, as most of it isn't really "architectural" - 
> it's described in the CORBA spec and somebody just has to do it.

That's ok.  There's no point in excessive bureucracy, I would just file 
a Jira issue in this case.  However, the reason that I wanted to use the 
wiki was to use that as an informal organization mechanism.  I would 
hate for you and others to start working on the same thing at the same time.

> For the trickier parts of an ORB a Wiki would certainly be a good idea 
> to achieve some high level implementation idea before actual coding 
> starts. However, I typically write an implementation overview 
> (responsibility of each package and how they work together) in javadoc 
> overview and package docs.
> Do you use javadoc in geronimo land or do you write everything in the 
> Wiki? What about end user docs, would they belong in src/xdocs, so 
> they are easy to distribute with releases, or would that go into the 
> Wiki, so they are easier to edit for non-committers? 

We haven't discussed that at any length, iirc.  I personally would 
prefer everything to go into the wiki.


View raw message