harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Preprocessor - CHECKPOINT
Date Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:28:28 GMT

Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Nathan Beyer wrote:
>>> What's the concern about just using the prescribed branching pattern
>>> for SVN? There are some other nice tricks like "externals" for pulling
>>> in common files into the working copies of other branches (ala the
>>> 'concurrent' code in 'standard' that's pulled into 'enhanced' on
>>> checkout). 
>> Even the authors of SVN warn people away from using externals.
> Yeah, and a nightmare when trying to 'tag' code -- copying the link to
> HEAD is no help.
>>> I would propose we at least attempt to go down a path of
>>> investigating a branching.
>> We should consider everything, but I'd personally rather keep as few
>> codelines as possible.
> Agreed.
>>> Regardless, I think we need to settle on our exact requirement first,
>>> before spending too much time on looking for a solution. For example,
>>> if logging is a real requirement, but everyone agrees it can be done
>>> via instrumentation (AspectJ, java.lang.instrument, etc), then are
>>> there any other requirements that affect the actual source files
>>> internally? If not, then could all of the other requirements be
>>> fulfilled by judicious SCM use?
>>> So, I would suggest we back up a little and just layout all of the
>>> requirements first, so we can make sure everyone's in agreement about
>>> the needs.
> Nathan is right -- this is hypothetical now, unless (for example) we
> start on Java 6 development now.
>> Exactly - we need use cases (and it's not clear that the logging
>> problems have been resolved w/ aspects yet...)
> You're joking, right?  I tease the aspect people that logging is the
> only problem that has been solved(*) <g>.  There are lots of references
> on how to do that, eg:
>   http://www.developer.com/java/other/article.php/3109831

There's caching too, I think.  LogCache4J

What I meant was that it didn't seem like we came to a conclusion on it 
- that if we had a general pre-processing solution, we could use that 
too for logging, rather than have two.

The actual use-cases will help figure this out.


> (*) it's not true though, there are a number of tasks that are
> well-suited to using aspects.  However, I would use them judiciously.

Like caching :)  (And get your local psychic retainer to tell you what 
the code is doing... ;)


> Regards,
> Tim

View raw message