Le 3/14/12 11:32 PM, Selcuk AYA a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<elecha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 3/14/12 10:52 PM, Selcuk AYA a écrit :
HI All,
Sorry for the earlier email. I think I owe some explaination on my
part. The reason for my request is purely technical, does not aim at
oss spirit or any other spirit for that matter:
* There are quite a number of files the txn branch is touching.
* There is no file ownership or review process.
combined with the timing limitation, it becomes hard for me to track
all changes and cleanup if necessary. When I am doing my changes and
need to change some existing stuff, I usually try to find the guy who
wrote the code and get an ack from him and this usually helps a lot
because even things that look stupid might have some reason to be
there. Please do the same while changing the txn branch.If this
process is followed, we wont have to discuss spirit hurting through
reverting code.
np. We can consider that the branch is your sandbox, and i'll keep it alone,
just let me know.
Look, I'm not trying to collide with what you are doing, Selcuk. Just trying
to add the necessary doco and clarification (ie, logs, formating) to get
people used with the code. If the code is not finished yet, and can keep
away from it atm, just say so.
I'm pretty sure we need to communicate more here to avoid such issues :
- telling what's going on through the exposure of a roadmap
- being more reactive (like just ack mails even if one does not have time to
give a clear answer)
Regarding the changed code, let me give you some clue about the reason I did
those changes :
when you log some LogEdit, the records are stored in a file and will have to
be read at some point. The externalizable classes have readExternal()
methods which expect the byte[] to contain the expected content. Currently,
we can do that if :
- we have stored only one type of object (like Entry)
- we have stored mixed data in a specific order, which allows the code to
deserialize the classes without adding a type.
I guess that the intention was to deserialize data expecting the serialized
structure will always be :
- TXN_BEGIN
- a DATA_CONTAINER
- TXN_COMMIT or TXN_ABORT
Here, I see one issues : in one case, we won't have any DATA_CONTAINER
(specifically when doing a BIND). We won't then be able to distinguish
between a TXN_BEGIN/DATA/TXN_COMMIT and a TXN_BEGIN/TXN_COMMIT if we don't
have an extra information, the type.
Unless there is something that can be used to make this distinction...
Can you enlight me here, in cas I'm doing something wrong ?
I will have a look at the code your tomorrow morning time and let you know.
ok, fine. I'll try to be connected early (like 08:00 CET / 0:00PDT) so
that we can discuss on IRC. Let me know if that's fine for you.
I'll crash in 15 minutes.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
