shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@gmail.com>
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 15:20:46 GMT
Production isn't even enabled on our site yet anyways, so it will show
only on the staging site.

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Franklin, Matthew B.
<mfranklin@mitre.org> wrote:
>>-----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