Hi Sanjiva, On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 21:33 +0530, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 06:10 -0800, Bill Nagy wrote: > > Hi Rajith, > > > > Usage of the serialization is/will be configurable through Sandesha -- > > Matt said that he would be adding code to do that (if it isn't there > > already.) If the serialization doesn't get invoked, then all that will > > occur will be a few no-op method invocations. > > > > I don't agree with point 5 being a "definite no no." I believe that it > > is a matter of personal preference and if the author of the code > > believes that it makes it easier to read and doesn't create issues then > > so be it. Any reasonable editor today will have no difficulty locating > > the definition if you need to look at it. > > I disagree- as an open source effort we should write in ways that > everyone can easily read and understand. These conventions are not > tailorable for personal preference! > > It seems to me that most people declare variables at the top and methods > below. Is that such a hard convention to accept? >
I don't honestly think that anyone who we want to be writing code for the project would have trouble understanding code simply because braces weren't on the lines where they typically put them or that methods aren't named in the same way that they usually name them. With respect to this particular issue, I don't think that the vast majority of people go look for declarations by scrolling to the top of the file -- IDEs have made that unnecessary. I think that we simply disagree on where to draw the line for "reasonable" deviations from the "rules." > > As I said, I certainly welcome any concerned party to show me (in > > hard/accurate numbers) where the code does not perform and it will be > > addressed. > > IMO its everyone's responsibility to make sure Axis2 performs well. > Telling someone else to run perf tests, do profiling and then point out > the place to fix is silly .. that person might as well fix it. Can't Ann > write some tests and check the perf and confirm all is koshure?? I completely agree. The issues that have been raised so far, however, have all been of the form "The code gets invoked on every invocation -- I don't like that." I was addressing those issues. I committed the code, therefore I am ultimately responsible for it. Before I did so, I read through it and did my best to make sure that it was not adversely effecting performance, and those are the points that I keep raising. Is this a lot of code that was changed/added? Certainly. Do I believe that it is isolated when not in use? Yes. I don't have to run performance tests simply because somebody says so when I'm comfortable with the logic of a particular change. Likewise, I don't believe that anybody runs performance tests for the vast majority of the changes that they make to the code, and they probably have thought about isolation a lot less than was done so for this particular change. Now if you want to raise the issue of performance when this particular branch of code is in use, that's a fair thing to look at. Right from the start, however, I will tell you that what existed before and what exists in the new code are not functionally equivalent. I'm not saying that the new code is slower or that if it is that it shouldn't be made to be faster -- I'm simply saying that it won't be comparing apples to apples. > > I'd prefer to be having this conversation with Ann .. not that I don't > like to chat with you Bill ;-)). That's fine; she's free to speak up (as she did.) I was just aware that she was busy, and since I'm aware of the details I wanted to address your concerns as quickly as possible. Also, as I stated, I committed the code into the tree, and so am ultimately responsible for that commit. -Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
