Hi.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:52:58 -0700, Otto Fowler wrote:
I think bringing back commons-monitoring/sirota would only be
possible if
it were to be modular enough that you could bring in the ‘core’
classes
without needing to bring in all of what sirota ended up being, which
was an
end to end solution.
Isn't it possible? [I didn't look; Romain should tell whether he
would be interested in taking that route.]
commons-monitoring or commons-timing seem to be the correct thing
however,
but I would like to think that there would be more impetus
I'm afraid that it's rather the lack of manpower.
[And my inner conviction is that that state of things often
led to rush to cramming more code into existing components,
rather than "distribute" more uniformly according to subject
matters. When scarce human resources ("community") disappear,
cruft accumulates, sometimes up to stifle clean-up, maintenance,
improvement, and even development.]
to do this than
thinking StackWatch is ‘too big’ for lang.time.
It isn't any more than many other functionalities that were
introduced but shouldn't have been.
Depending on what the "Commons" PMC wants to favour ("code"
*or* "community"?), the choice is between continuing with the
accumulation, or back-pedaling through the creation of as
many *real* components as they are developers willing to
maintain them.
It really isn’t that complicated a thing.
Sure.
The issue is somewhere else.
Note that, personally, I hadn't imagined that there would
be an issue for regular developers of [Lang] (or I wouldn't
have spent time reviewing the "details" ;-).
But I of course agree that the question should be asked; the
more so that, with [Math], we've a striking example of what
awaits a library that lacks boundary checks and explicit
road map.
Regards,
Gilles
On March 8, 2018 at 11:50:17, Gilles (gil...@harfang.homelinux.org)
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:03:24 +0000, Gary Gregory wrote:
-1 to "commons-misc". It feels to me like a copout and unfocused
like
SomethingUtils.
We need a proper home.
+1
How about the idea of commons-measure.
Just because the first feature would happen to be a timer?
What other content do you foresee?
Then there
still the idea of resurrecting other Apache projects. Kind of going
in
circles...
Indeed, IIRC the questions were asked (whether the feature could
be contributed to ex-Sirona and whether that project would be
repatriated to "Commons") but not answered (unless I'm mistaken)...
Best,
Gilles
Gary
On Mar 8, 2018 08:58, "Otto Fowler" <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
So, could think about commons-misc or something?
I don’t think we are going to come up with a perfect module for
these
things.
Maybe the way it can work is:
commons-misc exists.
It is the landing place for things that seem to be outside the scope
of
commons-xxxx, but don’t justify
a new module or sandbox effort.
Things in misc can be reevaluated for inclusion in new modules at
things
go, and at that point @Depricated
out of misc.
?
On March 3, 2018 at 00:42:12, Matt Sicker (boa...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 2 March 2018 at 13:31, Oliver Heger
<oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de>
wrote:
One other suggestion: It was stated in the past that the concurrent
classes are also a bit out of scope for [lang], especially the
circuit
breaker implementations. Would it make sense to move those into a
new
module, and could this be a home for the watch classes, too?
Considering the amount of retry libraries there are out there, I
think it
makes perfect sense for circuit breaker libraries to be their own
thing,
too. See Hysterix for example.
--
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
