shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Dumont" <ddum...@us.ibm.com>
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 19:14:57 GMT
I do commit some things that are 1 line changes or something small without 
review.
*shrug*    I'm still a new committer and I'd rather keep my work in the 
open as much as possible.  Unless you guys are just sick of seeing my 
review requests :P



From:   "Franklin, Matthew B." <mfranklin@mitre.org>
To:     "dev@shindig.apache.org" <dev@shindig.apache.org>, Dan 
Dumont/Westford/IBM@Lotus, 
Date:   07/25/2012 03:10 PM
Subject:        RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container 
implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service 
handlers. )



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



Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message