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 01:59:30 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message