You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wookie.apache.org by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> on 2012/06/10 00:40:01 UTC
Wookie Core Model/API refactoring
Hi everyone,
I had a go recently at refactoring the core model/API (IWidget and its dependents) so we don't have these almost-duplicate interfaces between the Parser and server components.
Partly this is because the redundancy has bugged me for a while, partly it will make moving to an SPI-type model for the backend much easier if we simplify the model and separate out model concerns as much as possible.
I've done this and got it working with JPA. However its a LOT of changes and I'm reluctant to just commit it.
I could create a branch for this - alternatively I can go ahead with the monster commit (and won't be upset if anyone decides to roll it back).
I'll attach the changes as a patch to WOOKIE-345 so you can get a better idea of the changes.
Thoughts?
S
Re: Wookie Core Model/API refactoring
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 11 Jun 2012, at 09:13, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Scott,
>
> I've not looked at your patch - sorry no time right now. I was just
> wondering if this was a good time to fix up the confusion between GET
> and PUT requests we discussed around 0.8 - you wrote a straw-man
> proposal around that time. (appols if this is already included in your
> patch)
I can't remember that one...is it in Jira anywhere? (NB this is about internal java APIs, not external REST API)
>
> Ross
>
> On 9 June 2012 23:40, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I had a go recently at refactoring the core model/API (IWidget and its dependents) so we don't have these almost-duplicate interfaces between the Parser and server components.
>>
>> Partly this is because the redundancy has bugged me for a while, partly it will make moving to an SPI-type model for the backend much easier if we simplify the model and separate out model concerns as much as possible.
>>
>> I've done this and got it working with JPA. However its a LOT of changes and I'm reluctant to just commit it.
>>
>> I could create a branch for this - alternatively I can go ahead with the monster commit (and won't be upset if anyone decides to roll it back).
>>
>> I'll attach the changes as a patch to WOOKIE-345 so you can get a better idea of the changes.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> S
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Wookie Core Model/API refactoring
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 11 Jun 2012, at 10:50, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 06/11/2012 10:25 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:14 AM
>>> To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Wookie Core Model/API refactoring
>>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> I've not looked at your patch - sorry no time right now. I was just
>>> wondering if this was a good time to fix up the confusion between GET
>>> and PUT requests we discussed around 0.8 - you wrote a straw-man
>>> proposal around that time. (appols if this is already included in your
>>> patch)
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>> On 9 June 2012 23:40, Scott Wilson<sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I had a go recently at refactoring the core model/API (IWidget and its
>>> dependents) so we don't have these almost-duplicate interfaces between
>>> the Parser and server components.
>>>>
>>>> Partly this is because the redundancy has bugged me for a while, partly it will
>>> make moving to an SPI-type model for the backend much easier if we simplify
>>> the model and separate out model concerns as much as possible.
>>>>
>>>> I've done this and got it working with JPA. However its a LOT of changes and
>>> I'm reluctant to just commit it.
>>>>
>>>> I could create a branch for this - alternatively I can go ahead with the
>>> monster commit (and won't be upset if anyone decides to roll it back).
>>
>> Given that you have already completed the work and attached a patch to the issue, my recommendation would be to call for a lazy consensus review and then apply it as a single commit. IMO, a branch only makes sense to do the work and there isn't a lot of value in branching for a single commit.
> +1
>
> Possibly it might have been useful to do or show these changes more iterative on a separate branch. But I also know that fundamental changes sometimes simply are too invasive or too big to make that feasible in practice.
Yep - I started with some smaller tasks like harmonizing method signatures etc., but when it came to actually removing the redundant interfaces it touched more or less everything at the same time.
>
>
> Ate
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll attach the changes as a patch to WOOKIE-345 so you can get a better idea
>>> of the changes.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> S
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
Re: Wookie Core Model/API refactoring
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On 06/11/2012 10:25 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:14 AM
>> To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Wookie Core Model/API refactoring
>>
>> Scott,
>>
>> I've not looked at your patch - sorry no time right now. I was just
>> wondering if this was a good time to fix up the confusion between GET
>> and PUT requests we discussed around 0.8 - you wrote a straw-man
>> proposal around that time. (appols if this is already included in your
>> patch)
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> On 9 June 2012 23:40, Scott Wilson<sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I had a go recently at refactoring the core model/API (IWidget and its
>> dependents) so we don't have these almost-duplicate interfaces between
>> the Parser and server components.
>>>
>>> Partly this is because the redundancy has bugged me for a while, partly it will
>> make moving to an SPI-type model for the backend much easier if we simplify
>> the model and separate out model concerns as much as possible.
>>>
>>> I've done this and got it working with JPA. However its a LOT of changes and
>> I'm reluctant to just commit it.
>>>
>>> I could create a branch for this - alternatively I can go ahead with the
>> monster commit (and won't be upset if anyone decides to roll it back).
>
> Given that you have already completed the work and attached a patch to the issue, my recommendation would be to call for a lazy consensus review and then apply it as a single commit. IMO, a branch only makes sense to do the work and there isn't a lot of value in branching for a single commit.
+1
Possibly it might have been useful to do or show these changes more iterative on
a separate branch. But I also know that fundamental changes sometimes simply are
too invasive or too big to make that feasible in practice.
Ate
>
>>>
>>> I'll attach the changes as a patch to WOOKIE-345 so you can get a better idea
>> of the changes.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> S
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
RE: Wookie Core Model/API refactoring
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:14 AM
>To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Wookie Core Model/API refactoring
>
>Scott,
>
>I've not looked at your patch - sorry no time right now. I was just
>wondering if this was a good time to fix up the confusion between GET
>and PUT requests we discussed around 0.8 - you wrote a straw-man
>proposal around that time. (appols if this is already included in your
>patch)
>
>Ross
>
>On 9 June 2012 23:40, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I had a go recently at refactoring the core model/API (IWidget and its
>dependents) so we don't have these almost-duplicate interfaces between
>the Parser and server components.
>>
>> Partly this is because the redundancy has bugged me for a while, partly it will
>make moving to an SPI-type model for the backend much easier if we simplify
>the model and separate out model concerns as much as possible.
>>
>> I've done this and got it working with JPA. However its a LOT of changes and
>I'm reluctant to just commit it.
>>
>> I could create a branch for this - alternatively I can go ahead with the
>monster commit (and won't be upset if anyone decides to roll it back).
Given that you have already completed the work and attached a patch to the issue, my recommendation would be to call for a lazy consensus review and then apply it as a single commit. IMO, a branch only makes sense to do the work and there isn't a lot of value in branching for a single commit.
>>
>> I'll attach the changes as a patch to WOOKIE-345 so you can get a better idea
>of the changes.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> S
>
>
>
>--
>Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>Programme Leader (Open Development)
>OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Wookie Core Model/API refactoring
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Scott,
I've not looked at your patch - sorry no time right now. I was just
wondering if this was a good time to fix up the confusion between GET
and PUT requests we discussed around 0.8 - you wrote a straw-man
proposal around that time. (appols if this is already included in your
patch)
Ross
On 9 June 2012 23:40, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I had a go recently at refactoring the core model/API (IWidget and its dependents) so we don't have these almost-duplicate interfaces between the Parser and server components.
>
> Partly this is because the redundancy has bugged me for a while, partly it will make moving to an SPI-type model for the backend much easier if we simplify the model and separate out model concerns as much as possible.
>
> I've done this and got it working with JPA. However its a LOT of changes and I'm reluctant to just commit it.
>
> I could create a branch for this - alternatively I can go ahead with the monster commit (and won't be upset if anyone decides to roll it back).
>
> I'll attach the changes as a patch to WOOKIE-345 so you can get a better idea of the changes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> S
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com