You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@continuum.apache.org by Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> on 2007/01/16 19:40:19 UTC
Re: short term branch for project/group keys
Jesse and myself had a chat yesterday morning about the key-refactoring
branch that we spun before Christmas last year, and we reckon that it
might be an idea to get 1.1-alpha rolling and meantime gather more
thoughts around Groupings (introduce versions/tags). We think having
String-based keys for groups might be more feasible for v1.2.
However, we are keen to bring over the API changes where the 'int' Ids
are now converted to 'long'. Some other bits like breaking up the
existing Project and ProjectGroup interfaces can be continued on the
trunk itself after the merge.
What do others think?
Cheers,
Rahul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse McConnell" <je...@gmail.com>
To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 8:30 AM
Subject: short term branch for project/group keys
>I am thinking about pulling a short term branch of continuum with
> rahul and working on getting everything converted to using a string
> based key project and project group reference in all apis and in all
> of the UI decision making items. He has tomorrow off so I think that
> unless anyone has any big issues with it we'll try and make that
> branch and work on it tomorrow.
>
> the end result of it would be:
>
> * int id's for project and project group in the model are for internal
> store usage
> * name's for project and project group are for presentation purposes
> only
> * key's are for all api usage and passing around un URL's etc.
>
> some quick benefits are:
>
> * consistency across all apis and url manipulations
> * ability to add quick url rewriting for direct linking of projects
> foo.org/Doxia/Core
> * common keys across running continuum instances for clustering
>
> jesse
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: short term branch for project/group keys
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
yep, call a vote on it summarizing your changes and what it all accomplishes
jesse
On 1/19/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am done with my changes on 'id-refactor' branch. The tests run fine
> without any errors. It would be great if others can take this for a spin
> as well.
>
> How does this gets merged back to trunk now? vote?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rahul
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jesse McConnell" <je...@gmail.com>
> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:11 AM
> Subject: Re: short term branch for project/group keys
>
>
> > sounds good :)
> >
> > On 1/18/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hey Jesse,
> >>
> >> I am gonna fork a new branch tonight and get started on this change.
> >> Hopefully should be able to get the relevant stuff that we have
> >> already
> >> done merged on the core modules before we start playing with the
> >> other
> >> modules tomorrow :-)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Rahul
> >>
> >>
> >> Jesse McConnell wrote:
> >> > I am loathe to let a branch lay around for a long time with minimal
> >> > work being done actively on it and we learned what we wanted to
> >> > from
> >> > it in the short time we worked with it I think.
> >> >
> >> > my take-away was that the change the string based keys will be a
> >> > good
> >> > change but its large enough that it should be done in the context
> >> > of
> >> > some other refactoring and changes.
> >> >
> >> > as for the int->long id change, I think its a good thing and will
> >> > focus us to address the database upgrading issue so its all good
> >> > imo
> >> > :)
> >> >
> >> > jesse
> >> >
> >> > On 1/16/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Jesse and myself had a chat yesterday morning about the
> >> >> key-refactoring
> >> >> branch that we spun before Christmas last year, and we reckon that
> >> >> it
> >> >> might be an idea to get 1.1-alpha rolling and meantime gather more
> >> >> thoughts around Groupings (introduce versions/tags). We think
> >> >> having
> >> >> String-based keys for groups might be more feasible for v1.2.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, we are keen to bring over the API changes where the 'int'
> >> >> Ids
> >> >> are now converted to 'long'. Some other bits like breaking up the
> >> >> existing Project and ProjectGroup interfaces can be continued on
> >> >> the
> >> >> trunk itself after the merge.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do others think?
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> Rahul
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "Jesse McConnell" <je...@gmail.com>
> >> >> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
> >> >> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 8:30 AM
> >> >> Subject: short term branch for project/group keys
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >I am thinking about pulling a short term branch of continuum with
> >> >> > rahul and working on getting everything converted to using a
> >> >> > string
> >> >> > based key project and project group reference in all apis and in
> >> >> > all
> >> >> > of the UI decision making items. He has tomorrow off so I think
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > unless anyone has any big issues with it we'll try and make that
> >> >> > branch and work on it tomorrow.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > the end result of it would be:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * int id's for project and project group in the model are for
> >> >> > internal
> >> >> > store usage
> >> >> > * name's for project and project group are for presentation
> >> >> > purposes
> >> >> > only
> >> >> > * key's are for all api usage and passing around un URL's etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > some quick benefits are:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * consistency across all apis and url manipulations
> >> >> > * ability to add quick url rewriting for direct linking of
> >> >> > projects
> >> >> > foo.org/Doxia/Core
> >> >> > * common keys across running continuum instances for clustering
> >> >> >
> >> >> > jesse
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > jesse mcconnell
> >> >> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > jesse mcconnell
> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: short term branch for project/group keys
Posted by Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com>.
I am done with my changes on 'id-refactor' branch. The tests run fine
without any errors. It would be great if others can take this for a spin
as well.
How does this gets merged back to trunk now? vote?
Cheers,
Rahul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse McConnell" <je...@gmail.com>
To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: short term branch for project/group keys
> sounds good :)
>
> On 1/18/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey Jesse,
>>
>> I am gonna fork a new branch tonight and get started on this change.
>> Hopefully should be able to get the relevant stuff that we have
>> already
>> done merged on the core modules before we start playing with the
>> other
>> modules tomorrow :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Rahul
>>
>>
>> Jesse McConnell wrote:
>> > I am loathe to let a branch lay around for a long time with minimal
>> > work being done actively on it and we learned what we wanted to
>> > from
>> > it in the short time we worked with it I think.
>> >
>> > my take-away was that the change the string based keys will be a
>> > good
>> > change but its large enough that it should be done in the context
>> > of
>> > some other refactoring and changes.
>> >
>> > as for the int->long id change, I think its a good thing and will
>> > focus us to address the database upgrading issue so its all good
>> > imo
>> > :)
>> >
>> > jesse
>> >
>> > On 1/16/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jesse and myself had a chat yesterday morning about the
>> >> key-refactoring
>> >> branch that we spun before Christmas last year, and we reckon that
>> >> it
>> >> might be an idea to get 1.1-alpha rolling and meantime gather more
>> >> thoughts around Groupings (introduce versions/tags). We think
>> >> having
>> >> String-based keys for groups might be more feasible for v1.2.
>> >>
>> >> However, we are keen to bring over the API changes where the 'int'
>> >> Ids
>> >> are now converted to 'long'. Some other bits like breaking up the
>> >> existing Project and ProjectGroup interfaces can be continued on
>> >> the
>> >> trunk itself after the merge.
>> >>
>> >> What do others think?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Rahul
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Jesse McConnell" <je...@gmail.com>
>> >> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
>> >> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 8:30 AM
>> >> Subject: short term branch for project/group keys
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >I am thinking about pulling a short term branch of continuum with
>> >> > rahul and working on getting everything converted to using a
>> >> > string
>> >> > based key project and project group reference in all apis and in
>> >> > all
>> >> > of the UI decision making items. He has tomorrow off so I think
>> >> > that
>> >> > unless anyone has any big issues with it we'll try and make that
>> >> > branch and work on it tomorrow.
>> >> >
>> >> > the end result of it would be:
>> >> >
>> >> > * int id's for project and project group in the model are for
>> >> > internal
>> >> > store usage
>> >> > * name's for project and project group are for presentation
>> >> > purposes
>> >> > only
>> >> > * key's are for all api usage and passing around un URL's etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > some quick benefits are:
>> >> >
>> >> > * consistency across all apis and url manipulations
>> >> > * ability to add quick url rewriting for direct linking of
>> >> > projects
>> >> > foo.org/Doxia/Core
>> >> > * common keys across running continuum instances for clustering
>> >> >
>> >> > jesse
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > jesse mcconnell
>> >> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: short term branch for project/group keys
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
sounds good :)
On 1/18/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Jesse,
>
> I am gonna fork a new branch tonight and get started on this change.
> Hopefully should be able to get the relevant stuff that we have already
> done merged on the core modules before we start playing with the other
> modules tomorrow :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rahul
>
>
> Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > I am loathe to let a branch lay around for a long time with minimal
> > work being done actively on it and we learned what we wanted to from
> > it in the short time we worked with it I think.
> >
> > my take-away was that the change the string based keys will be a good
> > change but its large enough that it should be done in the context of
> > some other refactoring and changes.
> >
> > as for the int->long id change, I think its a good thing and will
> > focus us to address the database upgrading issue so its all good imo
> > :)
> >
> > jesse
> >
> > On 1/16/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jesse and myself had a chat yesterday morning about the key-refactoring
> >> branch that we spun before Christmas last year, and we reckon that it
> >> might be an idea to get 1.1-alpha rolling and meantime gather more
> >> thoughts around Groupings (introduce versions/tags). We think having
> >> String-based keys for groups might be more feasible for v1.2.
> >>
> >> However, we are keen to bring over the API changes where the 'int' Ids
> >> are now converted to 'long'. Some other bits like breaking up the
> >> existing Project and ProjectGroup interfaces can be continued on the
> >> trunk itself after the merge.
> >>
> >> What do others think?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Rahul
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jesse McConnell" <je...@gmail.com>
> >> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 8:30 AM
> >> Subject: short term branch for project/group keys
> >>
> >>
> >> >I am thinking about pulling a short term branch of continuum with
> >> > rahul and working on getting everything converted to using a string
> >> > based key project and project group reference in all apis and in all
> >> > of the UI decision making items. He has tomorrow off so I think that
> >> > unless anyone has any big issues with it we'll try and make that
> >> > branch and work on it tomorrow.
> >> >
> >> > the end result of it would be:
> >> >
> >> > * int id's for project and project group in the model are for internal
> >> > store usage
> >> > * name's for project and project group are for presentation purposes
> >> > only
> >> > * key's are for all api usage and passing around un URL's etc.
> >> >
> >> > some quick benefits are:
> >> >
> >> > * consistency across all apis and url manipulations
> >> > * ability to add quick url rewriting for direct linking of projects
> >> > foo.org/Doxia/Core
> >> > * common keys across running continuum instances for clustering
> >> >
> >> > jesse
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > jesse mcconnell
> >> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: short term branch for project/group keys
Posted by Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hey Jesse,
I am gonna fork a new branch tonight and get started on this change.
Hopefully should be able to get the relevant stuff that we have already
done merged on the core modules before we start playing with the other
modules tomorrow :-)
Cheers,
Rahul
Jesse McConnell wrote:
> I am loathe to let a branch lay around for a long time with minimal
> work being done actively on it and we learned what we wanted to from
> it in the short time we worked with it I think.
>
> my take-away was that the change the string based keys will be a good
> change but its large enough that it should be done in the context of
> some other refactoring and changes.
>
> as for the int->long id change, I think its a good thing and will
> focus us to address the database upgrading issue so its all good imo
> :)
>
> jesse
>
> On 1/16/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jesse and myself had a chat yesterday morning about the key-refactoring
>> branch that we spun before Christmas last year, and we reckon that it
>> might be an idea to get 1.1-alpha rolling and meantime gather more
>> thoughts around Groupings (introduce versions/tags). We think having
>> String-based keys for groups might be more feasible for v1.2.
>>
>> However, we are keen to bring over the API changes where the 'int' Ids
>> are now converted to 'long'. Some other bits like breaking up the
>> existing Project and ProjectGroup interfaces can be continued on the
>> trunk itself after the merge.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rahul
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jesse McConnell" <je...@gmail.com>
>> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
>> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 8:30 AM
>> Subject: short term branch for project/group keys
>>
>>
>> >I am thinking about pulling a short term branch of continuum with
>> > rahul and working on getting everything converted to using a string
>> > based key project and project group reference in all apis and in all
>> > of the UI decision making items. He has tomorrow off so I think that
>> > unless anyone has any big issues with it we'll try and make that
>> > branch and work on it tomorrow.
>> >
>> > the end result of it would be:
>> >
>> > * int id's for project and project group in the model are for internal
>> > store usage
>> > * name's for project and project group are for presentation purposes
>> > only
>> > * key's are for all api usage and passing around un URL's etc.
>> >
>> > some quick benefits are:
>> >
>> > * consistency across all apis and url manipulations
>> > * ability to add quick url rewriting for direct linking of projects
>> > foo.org/Doxia/Core
>> > * common keys across running continuum instances for clustering
>> >
>> > jesse
>> >
>> > --
>> > jesse mcconnell
>> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>>
>>
>
>
Re: short term branch for project/group keys
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
I am loathe to let a branch lay around for a long time with minimal
work being done actively on it and we learned what we wanted to from
it in the short time we worked with it I think.
my take-away was that the change the string based keys will be a good
change but its large enough that it should be done in the context of
some other refactoring and changes.
as for the int->long id change, I think its a good thing and will
focus us to address the database upgrading issue so its all good imo
:)
jesse
On 1/16/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jesse and myself had a chat yesterday morning about the key-refactoring
> branch that we spun before Christmas last year, and we reckon that it
> might be an idea to get 1.1-alpha rolling and meantime gather more
> thoughts around Groupings (introduce versions/tags). We think having
> String-based keys for groups might be more feasible for v1.2.
>
> However, we are keen to bring over the API changes where the 'int' Ids
> are now converted to 'long'. Some other bits like breaking up the
> existing Project and ProjectGroup interfaces can be continued on the
> trunk itself after the merge.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Cheers,
> Rahul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jesse McConnell" <je...@gmail.com>
> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 8:30 AM
> Subject: short term branch for project/group keys
>
>
> >I am thinking about pulling a short term branch of continuum with
> > rahul and working on getting everything converted to using a string
> > based key project and project group reference in all apis and in all
> > of the UI decision making items. He has tomorrow off so I think that
> > unless anyone has any big issues with it we'll try and make that
> > branch and work on it tomorrow.
> >
> > the end result of it would be:
> >
> > * int id's for project and project group in the model are for internal
> > store usage
> > * name's for project and project group are for presentation purposes
> > only
> > * key's are for all api usage and passing around un URL's etc.
> >
> > some quick benefits are:
> >
> > * consistency across all apis and url manipulations
> > * ability to add quick url rewriting for direct linking of projects
> > foo.org/Doxia/Core
> > * common keys across running continuum instances for clustering
> >
> > jesse
> >
> > --
> > jesse mcconnell
> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com