shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Franklin, Matthew B." <mfrank...@mitre.org>
Subject RE: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Date Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:58:48 GMT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pmlindner@gmail.com [mailto:pmlindner@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>Paul Lindner
>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:16 PM
>To: dev@shindig.apache.org
>Cc: Dan Dumont
>Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container
>implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service
>handlers. )
>
>There's a third way -- lazy consensus.   Send the review but commit if no
>objections in a certain time period (as short as 24h)

+1 to Lazy consensus in the RTC model

The real question I was attempting to put forth is does shindig still need to be a fundamental
RTC community?  Again, there is nothing wrong with operating in that model so long as all
the committers are happy.

>
>Sending off a quick review shows respect for other team members, and is
>also useful if you're wanting feedback.
>
>And for simple, non controversial stuff we should all feel empowered to
>commit first.  Don't need to see reviews for comments or line-endings :)

So long as the line is defined, then IMHO that makes sense.

>
>On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
><mfranklin@mitre.org>wrote:
>
>> Most communities I have seen eventually adopt a Commit Then Review
>model
>> over a Review Then Commit model.  Due to the complexity of Shindig, I can
>> understand wanting to make sure that bigger changes are reviewed;
>however,
>> for trivial changes such as this, would it be easier to just commit the
>> change?
>>
>> I am not a committer, so it is really up to you all.  IMO, it is a lot of
>> overhead to review everything :) .  If you do move to a CTR model, I would
>> suggest setting some boundaries so that you work into the model.  Maybe
>> saying that any change with x lines, etc.
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Dan Dumont [mailto:noreply@reviews.apache.org] On Behalf Of
>Dan
>> >Dumont
>> >Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:28 PM
>> >To: shindig; Dan Dumont
>> >Subject: Review Request: Allow container implementations to more easily
>> >override and extend rpc registered service handlers.
>> >
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------
>> >This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> >https://reviews.apache.org/r/6141/
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Review request for shindig.
>> >
>> >
>> >Description
>> >-------
>> >
>> >Change rpc registration to return the old handler if there were any so
>> that
>> >container implementations may call into the previously registered handler
>> if
>> >they wish to extend the existing behavior.
>> >
>> >
>> >This addresses bug SHINDIG-1827.
>> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1827
>> >
>> >
>> >Diffs
>> >-----
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/
>> >features/container/container.js 1365569
>> >
>> >
>>
>http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/
>> >features/rpc/rpc.js 1365569
>> >
>> >Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6141/diff/
>> >
>> >
>> >Testing
>> >-------
>> >
>> >Tests pass.
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >Dan Dumont
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Paul Lindner -- lindner@inuus.com -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner
Mime
View raw message