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 Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:44:19 GMT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.saputra@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:45 AM
>To: dev@shindig.apache.org
>Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container
>implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service
>handlers. )
>
>Yeah we could do that but wouldnt that commit the changes to the site
>source repo?

Yes, but they aren't pushed to production until the SVN Pub/Sub is kicked.  SVN/CMS is probably
the best place to do this work IMHO.

>
>- Henry
>
>On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxter85@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What about using the staging site? :)
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Henry Saputra
><henry.saputra@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I can. Let me take a stab drafting one in the Shindig wiki so we
>>> could discuss and improve.
>>>
>>> - Henry
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxter85@apache.org>
>wrote:
>>> > Henry would you want to take a stab at drafting up Shindig's? :)
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Henry Saputra
><henry.saputra@gmail.com
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Oh yeah totally not copying from Hadoop bylaws =)
>>> >>
>>> >> What I meant "similar" was to have a written bylaws as guidance for
>>> >> committers and PMCs.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Henry
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
>>> >> <mfranklin@mitre.org> wrote:
>>> >> >>-----Original Message-----
>>> >> >>From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.saputra@gmail.com]
>>> >> >>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:15 PM
>>> >> >>To: dev@shindig.apache.org
>>> >> >>Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container
>>> >> >>implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered
>>> service
>>> >> >>handlers. )
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>I am thinking about having Apache Shindig bylaws similar to
what
>>> >> >>Apache Hadoop has: http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html which
>govern
>>> >> >>how code commits should be conducted.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > +1, though I would use a different community's bylaws as an example
>>> [1].
>>> >>  Their definition of Lazy consensus is a little off to me.   Ross
>>> Gardler
>>> >> wrote Rave's and it covers the concept well[2].
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [1] http://hc.apache.org/bylaws.html  (note the section on
>>> #Code_Review)
>>> >> > [2] http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>I'd like the simplicity of CTR but it needs to have good boundaries.
I
>>> >> >>really dont want us to come back to the old model where commits
>and
>>> >> >>reviews just done with some people working in the same companies.
>>> >> >>Reviews could be done early with some people but at the end
should
>>> >> >>targeted to dev list for final approval.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>- Henry
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>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/javascri
>>> >> >>pt/
>>> >> >>>>features/container/container.js 1365569
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascri
>>> >> >>pt/
>>> >> >>>>features/rpc/rpc.js 1365569
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6141/diff/
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>Testing
>>> >> >>>>-------
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>Tests pass.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>Thanks,
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>Dan Dumont
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>>
Mime
View raw message