incubator-clerezza-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto.bachm...@trialox.org>
Subject Re: sketch of a compromise solution -- Re: [VOTE] Accept the proposed patch of CLEREZZA-540
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:07:07 GMT
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 3 Jun 2011, at 13:29, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
>
> >>
> >> but that graph and something else, defined in some unrelated package.
> For
> >> me this does not make it easy to understand the code.
> >>
> > Obviously you don't. Would be good we find way to improve understanding
> of
> > the clerezza architecture without requiring blocking the evolution by
> > casting -1
>
> If I had cast a -1 then you would have had to remove the code without my
> needing to give you an explanation, as you did recently to my code - only
> providing an explanation a week after the fact. So please don't exaggerate.
> If not closing an issue is the equivalent to a -1, then you are the biggest
> disher-out of -1 on this list.
>

you wrote ( a few hours beforethe end of the 72h voting period):

-1 for the moment on closing the issue. (not on removing the code)
>   Please answer the above points carefully.


I can of course remove the code, In understood the staement above as you not
explicitely not asking me to do so. The point is that it makes little
difference (apart from the couple of minutes needed for the revert): your -1
is blocking further development.

To your claim that I did not provide an explanation for my recent -1 to your
resolution of CLEREZZA-515: A -1 without technical reasons is not valid, I
provided 5 technical reasons with my -1. I refused to give further
explanations and enter discussion before you removed the compatibility and
api-description breaking patch. It took you more than a week to revert this
change, this was a serious impediment on using the code in trunk.

May I ask you to be explicit:

[ ] I stick to my -1, but I don't mind the code staying there as long as no
new code is added depending on it
[ ] I want the patch for CLEREZZA-540 reverted
[ ] I withdraw my -1




> You added a GraphNodeProvider. I tried to use it to get GraphNodes for
> remote URIs, and discovered that I got the whole content graph,

documentation graph, and a number of other graphs with it too.

It returns a graphnode this is something else than a bunch of graphs as you
repeatedly claim. I wrote in my very first reply (and reiterated a few times
since) that you're invoking the wron method to discover about the resource.

I wrote

> getGraph returns "the graph the node represented by this instance is in",
> as I mentioned before this could be GGG. On a GraphNode you should usually
> not invoke getGraph, the object exists to hop from resource to resource.


Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

> The reasons for introducing this were never explained - you only just did
> it now, with reference to a discobits application that is not available in
> ZZ trunk.
>

The DiscobitsTypeHandler is quite a crucial component in Clerezza and it is
indeed part of trunk. CLEREZZA-541 was created together with issue 540 and
by being declaraed as dependency of CLEREZZA it should have been visible to
you. The DiscobitsTypeHandler is the default type-handler returning a
GraphNode as response to Http-GET requests. I would expect you to examine
the situation more carefully before vetoing changes.

Reto


> I am trying to read your explanation there and am not finding it easy to
> understand....
>
> Henry
>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message