shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@apache.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 00:49:34 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message