You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shindig.apache.org by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org> on 2012/07/25 21:07:21 UTC
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
Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations
to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Posted by Ryan Baxter <rb...@gmail.com>.
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.
<mf...@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 <rb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What about using the staging site? :)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Henry Saputra
>><he...@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 <rb...@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.
>>>> >> <mf...@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.
>>>> >> >><mf...@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
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
RE: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container
implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service
handlers. )
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
>-----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 <rb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What about using the staging site? :)
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Henry Saputra
><he...@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 <rb...@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.
>>> >> <mf...@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.
>>> >> >><mf...@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
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>>
Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations
to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Yeah we could do that but wouldnt that commit the changes to the site
source repo?
- Henry
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Ryan Baxter <rb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about using the staging site? :)
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@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 <rb...@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.
>> >> <mf...@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.
>> >> >><mf...@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
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>>
Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations
to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Posted by Ryan Baxter <rb...@gmail.com>.
What about using the staging site? :)
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@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 <rb...@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.
> >> <mf...@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.
> >> >><mf...@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
> >> >>>
> >>
>
Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations
to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
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 <rb...@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 <he...@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.
>> <mf...@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.
>> >><mf...@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
>> >>>
>>
Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations
to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Posted by Ryan Baxter <rb...@apache.org>.
Henry would you want to take a stab at drafting up Shindig's? :)
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@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.
> <mf...@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.
> >><mf...@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
> >>>
>
Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations
to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
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.
<mf...@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.
>><mf...@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
>>>
RE: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container
implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service
handlers. )
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
>-----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.
><mf...@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
>>
Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations
to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
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.
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.
<mf...@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/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
>
RE: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container
implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service
handlers. )
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pmlindner@gmail.com [mailto:pmlindner@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>Paul Lindner
>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:16 PM
>To: dev@shindig.apache.org
>Cc: Dan Dumont
>Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container
>implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service
>handlers. )
>
>There's a third way -- lazy consensus. Send the review but commit if no
>objections in a certain time period (as short as 24h)
+1 to Lazy consensus in the RTC model
The real question I was attempting to put forth is does shindig still need to be a fundamental RTC community? Again, there is nothing wrong with operating in that model so long as all the committers are happy.
>
>Sending off a quick review shows respect for other team members, and is
>also useful if you're wanting feedback.
>
>And for simple, non controversial stuff we should all feel empowered to
>commit first. Don't need to see reviews for comments or line-endings :)
So long as the line is defined, then IMHO that makes sense.
>
>On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
><mf...@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/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
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Paul Lindner -- lindner@inuus.com -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner
Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations
to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Posted by Paul Lindner <li...@inuus.com>.
There's a third way -- lazy consensus. Send the review but commit if no
objections in a certain time period (as short as 24h)
Sending off a quick review shows respect for other team members, and is
also useful if you're wanting feedback.
And for simple, non controversial stuff we should all feel empowered to
commit first. Don't need to see reviews for comments or line-endings :)
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
<mf...@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/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
>
>
--
Paul Lindner -- lindner@inuus.com -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner
Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations to
more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Posted by Dan Dumont <dd...@us.ibm.com>.
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." <mf...@mitre.org>
To: "dev@shindig.apache.org" <de...@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