You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> on 2005/01/14 15:50:47 UTC
[chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Just a reminder that there are some files associated with an
enhancement that need to be committed
(http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33006)
sean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
I do see the need to do dispatch-like things in my own applications
(although I don't take this approach). But, I would agree that a
DispatchCommand is out of scope for the core package.
As to LookUpCommand, I would favor moving config, generics, and web
into a "Chain-Extras" distribution, so that the Chain Core
distribution is just the interfaces and base implementations.
I very much like the original idea of implemenating the CoR pattern
and nothing else. This is not to say we can't build other
distributions on top of the CoR Core. I'm just saying this might be a
good time to draw a line in the sand between the Core and the CoR
Extras.
-Ted.
On Mar 30, 2005 2:36 PM, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know its been a while since we discussed this ... but I would like
> to bring up the issue of DispatchChain again. I have a pressing need
> for something like this in my current application. I need to go ahead
> and move it into our project codebase or have it added to
> commons-chain. No hard feelings if I cannot convince you that this is
> useful.
>
> I will briefly summarize my arguments again. The dispatch chain
> allows you to compose a chain of commands where the command method can
> be something other than execute. It will always have the same
> arguments and it will always be the same for every command in the
> chain. I think the fact that it is always the same method for every
> command in the chain is a key point here. Its still the CoR pattern.
> There is nothing special about the name of the execute method, the
> pattern just requires a consistent method.
>
> If you do not accept this line of reasoning then I would suggest that
> DispatchLookupCommand be removed from the codebase as well. I don't
> think you can justify one and not the other. Finally, its in the
> generic package so its entirely optional if you don't want to use it.
>
> I'd like to resolve this ASAP so I can go forward on my project here
> at work. Please give some thought to my arguments. As I said
> earlier, I will accept the decision of the group if the group cannot
> be persuaded.
>
> Regards,
> sean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Martin Cooper <mf...@gmail.com>.
I'm in the -0.5 camp myself. I agree with most of William Slough's
comments here:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33006#c11
In particular, the notion that the execute() method - the only method
a Command has - becomes irrelevant for commands that are intended to
be used this way seems to stretch things too far, IMO.
Also, as William mentions, the lack of interchangeability is
significant; you can't drop a regular command into such a chain and
have it work, nor can you take one of these commands and drop it into
a regular chain and expect the right thing to happen.
--
Martin Cooper
On Mar 31, 2005 12:59 PM, Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I'm leaning towards -0 (multiple "execute" methods per
> chain seem to encourage the wrong behavior -- combining lots of
> functionality into a single command versus splitting it up into fine
> grained reusable chunks), but won't veto it if others think the
> functionality is desireable.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:50:28 -0600, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> > At 2:42 PM -0500 3/31/05, James Mitchell wrote:
> > >Sean, I don't mind applying these changes so long as the other
> > >committers agree that this would be a good fit. Last I heard, there
> > >are still questions or concerns about adding this. I have not been
> > >able to find the time to look any deeper into this, so I can't argue
> > >one way or the other.
> >
> > I'm at +0 right now -- I don't feel strongly enough about my earlier
> > reservations to put up a fuss.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > >Sorry.
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >James Mitchell
> > >Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
> > >Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
> > >EdgeTech, Inc.
> > >678.910.8017
> > >AIM: jmitchtx
> > >Yahoo: jmitchtx
> > >MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Schofield" <se...@gmail.com>
> > >To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:36 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
> > >
> > >>I know its been a while since we discussed this ... but I would like
> > >>to bring up the issue of DispatchChain again. I have a pressing need
> > >>for something like this in my current application. I need to go ahead
> > >>and move it into our project codebase or have it added to
> > >>commons-chain. No hard feelings if I cannot convince you that this is
> > >>useful.
> > >>
> > >>I will briefly summarize my arguments again. The dispatch chain
> > >>allows you to compose a chain of commands where the command method can
> > >>be something other than execute. It will always have the same
> > >>arguments and it will always be the same for every command in the
> > >>chain. I think the fact that it is always the same method for every
> > >>command in the chain is a key point here. Its still the CoR pattern.
> > >>There is nothing special about the name of the execute method, the
> > >>pattern just requires a consistent method.
> > >>
> > >>If you do not accept this line of reasoning then I would suggest that
> > >>DispatchLookupCommand be removed from the codebase as well. I don't
> > >>think you can justify one and not the other. Finally, its in the
> > >>generic package so its entirely optional if you don't want to use it.
> > >>
> > >>I'd like to resolve this ASAP so I can go forward on my project here
> > >>at work. Please give some thought to my arguments. As I said
> > >>earlier, I will accept the decision of the group if the group cannot
> > >>be persuaded.
> > >>
> > >>Regards,
> > >>sean
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:09:11 -0500, Sean Schofield
> > >><se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>My original post to bugzilla didn't generate any responses. I figured
> > >>>once I wrote something and started pestering for a commit that would
> > >>>get the discussion going ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>>I will await your guys feedback once you've had a chance to think
> > >>>about use cases, etc.
> > >>>
> > >>>Let me know if you have any questions.
> > >>>
> > >>>sean
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:37:47 -0600, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> > >>>> At 9:20 AM -0800 1/14/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > >>>> >I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
> > >>>> >DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
> > >>>> >I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
> > >>>> >and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This has been my hesitation too. Since I haven't yet had a use case
> > >>>> for it, it seems a bit heavy for inclusion in the core library.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I wouldn't veto it, but it's why I have been hesitant. Like Craig, I
> > >>>> haven't looked very carefully at it, so I haven't spoken up yet.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Joe
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Joe Germuska
> > >>>> Joe@Germuska.com
> > >>>> http://blog.germuska.com
> > >>>> "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > >>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > >For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> > --
> > Joe Germuska
> > Joe@Germuska.com
> > http://blog.germuska.com
> > "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
Well the vote results are in and the grand total is -0.5. I'm not
sure how to count Craig's -0 and Joe's +0 but I assume they cancel
each other out ;-)
More importantly I am not seeing any +1 votes for this and since this
is a group effort I will defer to the wishes of the group. I will go
ahead and use the DispatchChain code in my personal project and just
refactor so its not using the common chain package structure. I
suggest we keep it around for a while in case the others have a change
in heart (since it took me a while to write the test cases, etc.) I
think there is a Bugzilla issue on this so we can resolve that Won't
Fix and I have the original code archived in my GMail account. So
there it will rest until called upon for official apache duty ;-)
No hard feelings on this end. I prefer honest and direct
communication and I'd rather reach a decision (in this case "no thank
you") than keep the issue going forever out of fear of hurting
someone's feelings (in this case, mine.) Thanks for the fair and
professional evaluation of the idea.
Regards,
sean
On Apr 1, 2005 11:00 AM, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> At 9:06 AM -0600 4/1/05, NetSQL wrote:
> >Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >>Personally, I'm leaning towards -0 (multiple "execute" methods per
> >>chain seem to encourage the wrong behavior -- combining lots of
> >>functionality into a single command versus splitting it up into fine
> >>grained reusable chunks), but won't veto it if others think the
> >>functionality is desireable.
> >
> >
> >Mutiple methods is wrong.
> >KISS!
> >
> >Single object should do single thing.
>
> Well, I don't totally agree with this. I'm a big advocate of
> DispatchAction, and I didn't feel like I had the time to craft the
> argument to Sean's assertion that if DispatchChain didn't belong then
> DispatchAction didn't either.
>
> On the other hand, this may be the best statement (or paraphrase, as
> it were, since I don't have the original):
> At 9:17 PM -0800 3/31/05, Martin Cooper wrote:
> >Also, as William mentions, the lack of interchangeability is
> >significant; you can't drop a regular command into such a chain and
> >have it work, nor can you take one of these commands and drop it into
> >a regular chain and expect the right thing to happen.
>
> you can drop a DispatchCommand in anywhere, as long as you configure
> it properly (and many commands need some external configuration.)
>
> I still don't really have enough time to argue vociferously about it
> either way....
>
> Joe
>
> --
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com
> http://blog.germuska.com
> "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com>.
At 9:06 AM -0600 4/1/05, NetSQL wrote:
>Craig McClanahan wrote:
>>Personally, I'm leaning towards -0 (multiple "execute" methods per
>>chain seem to encourage the wrong behavior -- combining lots of
>>functionality into a single command versus splitting it up into fine
>>grained reusable chunks), but won't veto it if others think the
>>functionality is desireable.
>
>
>Mutiple methods is wrong.
>KISS!
>
>Single object should do single thing.
Well, I don't totally agree with this. I'm a big advocate of
DispatchAction, and I didn't feel like I had the time to craft the
argument to Sean's assertion that if DispatchChain didn't belong then
DispatchAction didn't either.
On the other hand, this may be the best statement (or paraphrase, as
it were, since I don't have the original):
At 9:17 PM -0800 3/31/05, Martin Cooper wrote:
>Also, as William mentions, the lack of interchangeability is
>significant; you can't drop a regular command into such a chain and
>have it work, nor can you take one of these commands and drop it into
>a regular chain and expect the right thing to happen.
you can drop a DispatchCommand in anywhere, as long as you configure
it properly (and many commands need some external configuration.)
I still don't really have enough time to argue vociferously about it
either way....
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com
http://blog.germuska.com
"Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by NetSQL <ma...@friendVU.com>.
Craig McClanahan wrote:
> Personally, I'm leaning towards -0 (multiple "execute" methods per
> chain seem to encourage the wrong behavior -- combining lots of
> functionality into a single command versus splitting it up into fine
> grained reusable chunks), but won't veto it if others think the
> functionality is desireable.
Mutiple methods is wrong.
KISS!
Single object should do single thing.
.V
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
Personally, I'm leaning towards -0 (multiple "execute" methods per
chain seem to encourage the wrong behavior -- combining lots of
functionality into a single command versus splitting it up into fine
grained reusable chunks), but won't veto it if others think the
functionality is desireable.
Craig
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:50:28 -0600, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> At 2:42 PM -0500 3/31/05, James Mitchell wrote:
> >Sean, I don't mind applying these changes so long as the other
> >committers agree that this would be a good fit. Last I heard, there
> >are still questions or concerns about adding this. I have not been
> >able to find the time to look any deeper into this, so I can't argue
> >one way or the other.
>
> I'm at +0 right now -- I don't feel strongly enough about my earlier
> reservations to put up a fuss.
>
> Joe
>
>
> >Sorry.
> >
> >
> >--
> >James Mitchell
> >Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
> >Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
> >EdgeTech, Inc.
> >678.910.8017
> >AIM: jmitchtx
> >Yahoo: jmitchtx
> >MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Schofield" <se...@gmail.com>
> >To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:36 PM
> >Subject: Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
> >
> >>I know its been a while since we discussed this ... but I would like
> >>to bring up the issue of DispatchChain again. I have a pressing need
> >>for something like this in my current application. I need to go ahead
> >>and move it into our project codebase or have it added to
> >>commons-chain. No hard feelings if I cannot convince you that this is
> >>useful.
> >>
> >>I will briefly summarize my arguments again. The dispatch chain
> >>allows you to compose a chain of commands where the command method can
> >>be something other than execute. It will always have the same
> >>arguments and it will always be the same for every command in the
> >>chain. I think the fact that it is always the same method for every
> >>command in the chain is a key point here. Its still the CoR pattern.
> >>There is nothing special about the name of the execute method, the
> >>pattern just requires a consistent method.
> >>
> >>If you do not accept this line of reasoning then I would suggest that
> >>DispatchLookupCommand be removed from the codebase as well. I don't
> >>think you can justify one and not the other. Finally, its in the
> >>generic package so its entirely optional if you don't want to use it.
> >>
> >>I'd like to resolve this ASAP so I can go forward on my project here
> >>at work. Please give some thought to my arguments. As I said
> >>earlier, I will accept the decision of the group if the group cannot
> >>be persuaded.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>sean
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:09:11 -0500, Sean Schofield
> >><se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>My original post to bugzilla didn't generate any responses. I figured
> >>>once I wrote something and started pestering for a commit that would
> >>>get the discussion going ;-)
> >>>
> >>>I will await your guys feedback once you've had a chance to think
> >>>about use cases, etc.
> >>>
> >>>Let me know if you have any questions.
> >>>
> >>>sean
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:37:47 -0600, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> >>>> At 9:20 AM -0800 1/14/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >>>> >I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
> >>>> >DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
> >>>> >I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
> >>>> >and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
> >>>>
> >>>> This has been my hesitation too. Since I haven't yet had a use case
> >>>> for it, it seems a bit heavy for inclusion in the core library.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wouldn't veto it, but it's why I have been hesitant. Like Craig, I
> >>>> haven't looked very carefully at it, so I haven't spoken up yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Joe Germuska
> >>>> Joe@Germuska.com
> >>>> http://blog.germuska.com
> >>>> "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
> --
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com
> http://blog.germuska.com
> "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com>.
At 2:42 PM -0500 3/31/05, James Mitchell wrote:
>Sean, I don't mind applying these changes so long as the other
>committers agree that this would be a good fit. Last I heard, there
>are still questions or concerns about adding this. I have not been
>able to find the time to look any deeper into this, so I can't argue
>one way or the other.
I'm at +0 right now -- I don't feel strongly enough about my earlier
reservations to put up a fuss.
Joe
>Sorry.
>
>
>--
>James Mitchell
>Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
>Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
>EdgeTech, Inc.
>678.910.8017
>AIM: jmitchtx
>Yahoo: jmitchtx
>MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Schofield" <se...@gmail.com>
>To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:36 PM
>Subject: Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
>
>>I know its been a while since we discussed this ... but I would like
>>to bring up the issue of DispatchChain again. I have a pressing need
>>for something like this in my current application. I need to go ahead
>>and move it into our project codebase or have it added to
>>commons-chain. No hard feelings if I cannot convince you that this is
>>useful.
>>
>>I will briefly summarize my arguments again. The dispatch chain
>>allows you to compose a chain of commands where the command method can
>>be something other than execute. It will always have the same
>>arguments and it will always be the same for every command in the
>>chain. I think the fact that it is always the same method for every
>>command in the chain is a key point here. Its still the CoR pattern.
>>There is nothing special about the name of the execute method, the
>>pattern just requires a consistent method.
>>
>>If you do not accept this line of reasoning then I would suggest that
>>DispatchLookupCommand be removed from the codebase as well. I don't
>>think you can justify one and not the other. Finally, its in the
>>generic package so its entirely optional if you don't want to use it.
>>
>>I'd like to resolve this ASAP so I can go forward on my project here
>>at work. Please give some thought to my arguments. As I said
>>earlier, I will accept the decision of the group if the group cannot
>>be persuaded.
>>
>>Regards,
>>sean
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:09:11 -0500, Sean Schofield
>><se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>My original post to bugzilla didn't generate any responses. I figured
>>>once I wrote something and started pestering for a commit that would
>>>get the discussion going ;-)
>>>
>>>I will await your guys feedback once you've had a chance to think
>>>about use cases, etc.
>>>
>>>Let me know if you have any questions.
>>>
>>>sean
>>>
>>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:37:47 -0600, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>>>> At 9:20 AM -0800 1/14/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
>>>> >I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
>>>> >DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
>>>> >I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
>>>> >and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
>>>>
>>>> This has been my hesitation too. Since I haven't yet had a use case
>>>> for it, it seems a bit heavy for inclusion in the core library.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't veto it, but it's why I have been hesitant. Like Craig, I
>>>> haven't looked very carefully at it, so I haven't spoken up yet.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe Germuska
>>>> Joe@Germuska.com
>>>> http://blog.germuska.com
>>>> "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com
http://blog.germuska.com
"Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
Sean, I don't mind applying these changes so long as the other committers
agree that this would be a good fit. Last I heard, there are still
questions or concerns about adding this. I have not been able to find the
time to look any deeper into this, so I can't argue one way or the other.
Sorry.
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
EdgeTech, Inc.
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
Yahoo: jmitchtx
MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean Schofield" <se...@gmail.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
>I know its been a while since we discussed this ... but I would like
> to bring up the issue of DispatchChain again. I have a pressing need
> for something like this in my current application. I need to go ahead
> and move it into our project codebase or have it added to
> commons-chain. No hard feelings if I cannot convince you that this is
> useful.
>
> I will briefly summarize my arguments again. The dispatch chain
> allows you to compose a chain of commands where the command method can
> be something other than execute. It will always have the same
> arguments and it will always be the same for every command in the
> chain. I think the fact that it is always the same method for every
> command in the chain is a key point here. Its still the CoR pattern.
> There is nothing special about the name of the execute method, the
> pattern just requires a consistent method.
>
> If you do not accept this line of reasoning then I would suggest that
> DispatchLookupCommand be removed from the codebase as well. I don't
> think you can justify one and not the other. Finally, its in the
> generic package so its entirely optional if you don't want to use it.
>
> I'd like to resolve this ASAP so I can go forward on my project here
> at work. Please give some thought to my arguments. As I said
> earlier, I will accept the decision of the group if the group cannot
> be persuaded.
>
> Regards,
> sean
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:09:11 -0500, Sean Schofield
> <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My original post to bugzilla didn't generate any responses. I figured
>> once I wrote something and started pestering for a commit that would
>> get the discussion going ;-)
>>
>> I will await your guys feedback once you've had a chance to think
>> about use cases, etc.
>>
>> Let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>> sean
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:37:47 -0600, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com>
>> wrote:
>> > At 9:20 AM -0800 1/14/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
>> > >I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
>> > >DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
>> > >I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
>> > >and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
>> >
>> > This has been my hesitation too. Since I haven't yet had a use case
>> > for it, it seems a bit heavy for inclusion in the core library.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't veto it, but it's why I have been hesitant. Like Craig, I
>> > haven't looked very carefully at it, so I haven't spoken up yet.
>> >
>> > Joe
>> >
>> > --
>> > Joe Germuska
>> > Joe@Germuska.com
>> > http://blog.germuska.com
>> > "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
I know its been a while since we discussed this ... but I would like
to bring up the issue of DispatchChain again. I have a pressing need
for something like this in my current application. I need to go ahead
and move it into our project codebase or have it added to
commons-chain. No hard feelings if I cannot convince you that this is
useful.
I will briefly summarize my arguments again. The dispatch chain
allows you to compose a chain of commands where the command method can
be something other than execute. It will always have the same
arguments and it will always be the same for every command in the
chain. I think the fact that it is always the same method for every
command in the chain is a key point here. Its still the CoR pattern.
There is nothing special about the name of the execute method, the
pattern just requires a consistent method.
If you do not accept this line of reasoning then I would suggest that
DispatchLookupCommand be removed from the codebase as well. I don't
think you can justify one and not the other. Finally, its in the
generic package so its entirely optional if you don't want to use it.
I'd like to resolve this ASAP so I can go forward on my project here
at work. Please give some thought to my arguments. As I said
earlier, I will accept the decision of the group if the group cannot
be persuaded.
Regards,
sean
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:09:11 -0500, Sean Schofield
<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My original post to bugzilla didn't generate any responses. I figured
> once I wrote something and started pestering for a commit that would
> get the discussion going ;-)
>
> I will await your guys feedback once you've had a chance to think
> about use cases, etc.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions.
>
> sean
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:37:47 -0600, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> > At 9:20 AM -0800 1/14/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > >I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
> > >DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
> > >I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
> > >and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
> >
> > This has been my hesitation too. Since I haven't yet had a use case
> > for it, it seems a bit heavy for inclusion in the core library.
> >
> > I wouldn't veto it, but it's why I have been hesitant. Like Craig, I
> > haven't looked very carefully at it, so I haven't spoken up yet.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > --
> > Joe Germuska
> > Joe@Germuska.com
> > http://blog.germuska.com
> > "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
My original post to bugzilla didn't generate any responses. I figured
once I wrote something and started pestering for a commit that would
get the discussion going ;-)
I will await your guys feedback once you've had a chance to think
about use cases, etc.
Let me know if you have any questions.
sean
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:37:47 -0600, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> At 9:20 AM -0800 1/14/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
> >DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
> >I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
> >and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
>
> This has been my hesitation too. Since I haven't yet had a use case
> for it, it seems a bit heavy for inclusion in the core library.
>
> I wouldn't veto it, but it's why I have been hesitant. Like Craig, I
> haven't looked very carefully at it, so I haven't spoken up yet.
>
> Joe
>
> --
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com
> http://blog.germuska.com
> "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com>.
At 9:20 AM -0800 1/14/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
>I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
>DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
>I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
>and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
This has been my hesitation too. Since I haven't yet had a use case
for it, it seems a bit heavy for inclusion in the core library.
I wouldn't veto it, but it's why I have been hesitant. Like Craig, I
haven't looked very carefully at it, so I haven't spoken up yet.
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com
http://blog.germuska.com
"Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
I would start by saying that you can make the case for DispatchChain
more than you can for DispatchCommand or LookupDispatchCommand both of
which are now in there.
Joe should probably weigh in on this because of his initial
contribution of DispatchCommand. I added LookupDispatchCommand to
round things out but I'm not totally convinced its necessary anymore
(I thought I would need it for DispatchChain.)
Now some additional defense about my beloved DispatchChain...
Its not for everyone, true, but neither is LookupCommand and stuff
like that. That's why I feel it should belong in the 'generic'
package. Its a useful tool that is general enough that others may
want to use it.
Also, DispatchChain still implements the Command interface. It has
only a single execute method. It can be used with ChainBase,
LookupCommand, or any of the other combinations of Commands you can
think of. You do not use a dispatch method to call DispatchChain, you
just provide the chain with a dispatch method to call on its own
commands.
This is still in keeping with the composite nature of the chain. When
you lookup a regular chain in a catalog and call execute, you don't
have to worry yourself about whether something is a chain or a regular
command, just that it implements the command interface. Same thing
here. Its just that now this variant of chain will call a different
method on its commands.
Its still in keeping with the COR pattern. A single method (and the
same method) is called by every command in the chain. Any one of
those commands can terminate execution if it feels the request has
been satisfied. Just think of it as a chain within a chain.
sean
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:20:56 -0800, Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
> DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
> I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
> and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
>
> Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
Craig
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:20:44 -0500, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
> I saw that, but I was waiting for more comments from others. Forgive me,
> I'm still new to this whole chain thing. I'm still in the "hey, look what I
> can do with this.....this is sooo cool!!!" phase ;)
>
> From everything I've read, a Command should have a single entry method
> called "execute". I was hoping someone else might raise the issue of
> allowing to dispatch to other methods. I'm all about reuse, but I just
> don't have enough grounding in this area to say one way or the other.
>
> I will commit the files if no one objects. I'll give it a few days to allow
> others to respond.
>
> BTW....thanks for your help!
>
> --
> James Mitchell
> Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
> EdgeTech, Inc.
> 678.910.8017
> AIM: jmitchtx
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Wrom: IGYOKSTTZRCLBDXRQBGJSNBOHMKHJYFMYXOEAIJJPHS
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 9:50 AM
> Subject: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
>
> > Just a reminder that there are some files associated with an
> > enhancement that need to be committed
> > (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33006)
> >
> > sean
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
I saw that, but I was waiting for more comments from others. Forgive me,
I'm still new to this whole chain thing. I'm still in the "hey, look what I
can do with this.....this is sooo cool!!!" phase ;)
>From everything I've read, a Command should have a single entry method
called "execute". I was hoping someone else might raise the issue of
allowing to dispatch to other methods. I'm all about reuse, but I just
don't have enough grounding in this area to say one way or the other.
I will commit the files if no one objects. I'll give it a few days to allow
others to respond.
BTW....thanks for your help!
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
EdgeTech, Inc.
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean Schofield" <se...@gmail.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
> Just a reminder that there are some files associated with an
> enhancement that need to be committed
> (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33006)
>
> sean
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org