incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code?
Date Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:51:17 GMT
Very cool. Thanks Hugo!

- chip

Sent from my iPhone.

On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Hugo Trippaers
<HTrippaers@schubergphilis.com> wrote:

> Hey Chip,
>
> Sure, happy to help out. I can probably get something done this weekend. Having this
as a generic class could be a benefit for future integrations as well.
>
> I'll dive in to the code and keep track of this thread to see if I can help out.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hugo
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 3 aug. 2012, at 19:21, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> Hugo,
>>
>> Just looked at your implementation.  It does appear to do the same
>> thing, which is fantastic.  Would you happen to have any availability
>> to attempt to replace the F5 code with something similar to your
>> implementation?  Perhaps it should be a utility class that can be
>> shared between the two features?
>>
>> Kishan has CS-15732 currently assigned to him (the bug for tracking
>> this), but I haven't heard anything about progress.
>>
>> Kishan - if you've actually started already, can you please let the list know?
>>
>> -chip
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Hugo Trippaers
>> <HTrippaers@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>>> Heya,
>>>
>>> Just pitching in without context, but I have some code in the Nicira stuff that
does that, provided the code uses httpclient in the back.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Hugo
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 3 aug. 2012, at 13:02, "Arve Paalsrud" <Arve.Paalsrud@bayonette.no>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have not been able to get a response from Jacob Gilley through a few channels,
so we should move forward replacing the XTrustProvider class. It's not too big of a deal and
shouldn't take long, but there are really not that many ways to do it. The task is pretty
much to accept any SSL certificates, regardless if they are self-signed or from a root cert.
I can't see that it will require any special refactoring of the callers either.
>>>>
>>>> For further information of the source: https://devcentral.f5.com/Community/GroupDetails/tabid/1082223/asg/51/aft/2279/showtab/groupforums/Default.aspx
>>>>
>>>> -Arve
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Chip Childers
>>>> Sent: 1. august 2012 03:25
>>>> Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code?
>>>>
>>>> Fantastic Arve!  Thanks for pitching in.
>>>>
>>>> -chip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Arve Paalsrud <Arve.Paalsrud@bayonette.no>
wrote:
>>>>> This code snippet is written by Jacob Gilley in a forum thread over at
F5 Dev Central in 2005, and not F5 Network themselves. F5's version and the original code
are identical - they've only added the copyright statements and optional GPL, so I've reached
out to Jacob and asked if he's willing to release it under Apache.
>>>>>
>>>>> Waiting for his reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Arve
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Adrian Cole [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: 1. august 2012 02:57
>>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code?
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 (non-binding and certainly not official) for taking the opportunity
>>>>> +to
>>>>> rewrite code as a chance to make things better, vs least efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Code written more than several months prior can often be written better
anyway (one hopes their skills age well :P).  Particularly, unit tests are a welcome great
improvement whenever there's code to be "rewritten".  I'd go so far as to say code without
unit tests are often time bombs that should be rewritten anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> -A
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/08/2012, at 6:52 AM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone know the official ASF stance on what it means to
>>>>>>> "re-write" a section of code?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no general answer to this - each case needs to be considered
>>>>>> separately. This was the closest I could find in the archives:
>>>>>> http://s.apache.org/rewriting-code
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specifically, I was looking at the F5 code [1] that was found
>>>>>>> during license header changes (and is considered a release blocker
bug [2]).
>>>>>>> The code is actually quite trivial in nature, and I'm wondering
>>>>>>> what it would take to correctly write a replacement class file.
 My
>>>>>>> assumption is that simply re-naming variables wouldn't work (and
>>>>>>> even if that was enough, there are only a handful of them in
the file).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree, renaming variables is definitely not right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case it is trivial (I googled and found a half-dozen examples
>>>>>> doing the same thing), so I'd say remove it and have someone
>>>>>> reimplement it. It may be better in these cases if they haven't seen
>>>>>> the original code, but not strictly necessary. It is probably a good
>>>>>> opportunity to refactor calling code too, if needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other cases, an option available is to ask the copyright holder
if
>>>>>> they'd consider contributing/granting a license to a piece of code
to
>>>>>> include here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ultimately, we want to make sure we do the right thing by the authors
>>>>>> and that code here is intentionally contributed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>> Brett
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Brett Porter
>>>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>>>> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
>>>>>> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/brettporter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message