Re: [jboss-as7-dev] Moving EJB3 code into the AS7 source tree
Carlo and I had a chat about this yesterday. For the benefit of those
who are following this thread, EJB3 team is *not* opposed to moving that
code from a separate repo/project into the AS7 codebase. That's fine.
Some of the points that we discussed included the loss of history over
that code. I don't know if it's possible to somehow get back the history
on those files (now that the upstream already contains these files). But
it would be good to have the history since those files (like the tx
interceptors) have been around since AS 4.x days and have some good
amount of commits linked against JIRAs.
One other point was having finer grained modules like ejb3-tx (within
the AS codebase) instead of clubbing everything under the jboss-as/ejb3
module. That way each such module can have the right set of limited
module dependencies. Ofcourse, just creating a module for the sake of it
wouldn't make sense. So if there is a clear separation for creating a
module, then perhaps that would be a good idea. Thoughts?
-Jaikiran
On Thursday 25 August 2011 11:12 PM, 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)
>
> 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.
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.