1:34 a.m.
On 08/26/2011 06:58 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
I have moved the code and tests over.
Stuart
On 26/08/2011, at 3:42 AM, Jason T. Greene wrote:
> On 8/25/11 3:09 AM, Carlo de Wolf wrote:
>>
http://community.jboss.org/people/wolfc/blog/2010/11/26/strategies-for-se...
>>
>> The only objection I have is putting everything in a single module and
>> just separate concerns on a package level.
> There is also some logical separation in that ejb3 is still a separate subsystem, and
therefore a separate module. The code is just in the same place and versioned with all
other subsystems. I think it's fine to break things into separately versioned external
components when we have reuse (or great potential of reuse). The ejb3 timer implementation
though is unlikely to be useful to anyone other than our impl. So using package separation
for that case seems more than adequate (at least now)
I wasn't talking about an
external component. So based on that false
assumption the commit has been approved.
I also see that we've lost the history of the source code, while git is
capable of (and designed for) slicing and dicing code bases including
history.
I would rather go for an open minded approach which gives the freedom
for re-use, then such a close minded one. But I agree with you that we
are incapable of fostering such an environment.
>> As I've pointed out a couple of times, in the AS 7 code
base we're not
>> vigilant enough nor does the review process catch design issues. For the
>> review process to do a proper design check would form an unwanted choke
>> point. So we still need to find ways to guard the code against design
>> regression.
> We certainly could improve here in various areas. We need to make sure we capture
designs in wikis or in javadoc or in code comments. This is done in many cases but not
others. Ideally we start with an agreed upon requirements doc, then a set of docs
detailing the abstract design. Then when code is created we try to reflect the doc
information in comments and javadoc. Any significant refactor then can be reviewed
against that information.
>
> Right now we certainly discuss all major EE refactors, and we validate they introduce
no test regressions and no TCK regressions before we merge these kind of patches.
That works on the assumption that tests get written (and get written well).
Something I recently encountered showed that we're still lacking coverage:
https://github.com/wolfc/jboss-as/commit/658a23d43711e5b1f2dc8a3f7c550636...
Note that I'm a guilty party here as well as I did not write a test-case
to guard my initial MDB implementation (just a demo).
> As to preventing choke points, I think this has to do with what
the patch touches. The burden is ultimately on the person sending in the pull request /
patch to break up changes in such a way that they are applied in reasonable time frames.
For example simple bug fixes require much less review than a complete re-architecture of
EE proxies.
Yes, pull requests creating a burden on the reviewer. That's the
nature
of our current review process. Whether a contribution is applied in a
timely manner is up to the pushers. To go by example I've got a
contribution that is a first stage of on-going work, yet it has been
sitting idly for some time now: https://github.com/jbossas/jboss-as/pull/90
Carlo
> --
> Jason T. Greene
> JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat