[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-672?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14195888#comment-14195888
]
Srikanth Sundarrajan commented on FALCON-672:
---------------------------------------------
Updated the review board with some comments.
Overall observations on the design:
1. ActionConfiguration seems to hold the transition information and that seem
to burden actions with transition information as well. Would prefer that flow
holds the list of actions and the transition information.
2. Version of flows isn't following a stack model, that allows you to pop out
newer changes and reverting to older version, instead it seem to be branching
off while simultaneous
ly delinking from the parent. This has to be further debated and agreed on.
Personally I can see some advantages with the current model, but there are also
challenges. We need to
be fully aware of the limitations and advantages before we proceed with one
approach or the other
3. Designer Service should have mechanism to create new actions or transforms.
This is essentially to truly making this an extensible platform.
4. Since all the classes are foundational, please write detailed class level
and method level javadocs.
5. Is the module name "core" required in the package name ?
> Design/Implement the client /server api
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: FALCON-672
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-672
> Project: Falcon
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: designer
> Reporter: samar
> Attachments: falcon_desinger_api_design.jpg, flow_object_model.jpg,
> primitive_class_diagram.gif
>
>
> Design/Implement the client /server api which will be exposed by the server
> and will be used by any client to interact with designer. This would include
> the final data model and the service contract
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
