tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1303591 - /tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/core/runtime/impl/EndpointReferenceBinderImpl.java
Date Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:11:39 GMT
Come on Raymond if anyone is playing games it is you by reverting
changes, comments inline below:

   ...ant

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Raymond Feng <enjoyjava@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ant, please STOP playing the "veto" game here.
>
> 1. Your change broke most if not all the binding invokers that make outbound
> connections using the binding uri even though the failures were not directly
> exposed due to lack of test coverage which we should improve.
>

The change did not break the Tuscany build, or any tests. If you have
a particular use case that is not part of that you should add some
tests to Tuscany for it. At the very least you should be less upset
when a trunk change impacts your non-tested use cases while you don't
have tests for them in the build.

> 2. The Endpoint concept was introduced later in the cycle. As a result, most
> of the reference binding invokers still depend on the behavior that the
> reference binding is set with the deployed service endpoint uri. We can
> argue if it's good or bad but we need to fix them before another bug fix
> regressed the code so much. I will try to fix the binding invokers but it
> will take a bit time.
>

Ok finally that gives a hint at what your issue is - so are you
agreeing now that the Rest invoker just hasn't kept up with trunk dev
and now has a bug that needs fixing along the lines of what i've
suggested in TUSCANY-4029?

> 3. I have the same veto right too. The only thing is that my revert didn't
> completely roll back all your changes including the failing compliance test
> if it's added recently. I explained in the e-mail why I need to revert your
> change. Maybe I should say -1 or veto your change too to make it clear.
>

Yes you could, but you need a technical reason to support it and then
you leave the actual reverting to be done by the person you're
vetoing. And the technical reason for this objection here is seeming
very hard to get you or Luciano to actually give precise details on.
And BTW, the compliance test thats now broken is not a new one its
been there for ages, even if it was new thats shouldn't make a
difference - trunk is where we do new development.

> 4. Please don't abuse/stain the Apache hat when/if you try to push for some
> 'private' agenda.
>
> Sorry for being harsh here but otherwise we'll be painted as anti-Apache if
> we have technical disagreement.
>

I don't know about anti-Apache but it doesn't feel particularly
community spirited with this aggressive over reaction that i'm getting
from you and Luciano for a change that didn't even break anything
within Tuscany. If we're ever going to encourage others to come
participate in development here, especially as volunteers in their own
time, we need to have a more friendly approach when you don't like or
understand something.

   ...ant

Mime
View raw message