RE: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
My apologies - I'm fairly new to this. The procedures aren't yet ingrained. ;-) Karl From: gian...@gmail.com [gian...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of ext Gianugo Rabellino [gian...@rabellino.it] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:30 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > Consider this an official request for a vote. Then please, next time mark it explicitly as such. This is usually done, in Apache-land, by prefixing the subject with [VOTE]. This way people who are in cursory-reading mode (like myself) won't be missing an important decision point. Thanks, -- Gianugo
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > Consider this an official request for a vote. Then please, next time mark it explicitly as such. This is usually done, in Apache-land, by prefixing the subject with [VOTE]. This way people who are in cursory-reading mode (like myself) won't be missing an important decision point. Thanks, -- Gianugo
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
Cool, thanks I don't want to be a pain, but trying to help improve the end result. And of course I understand the project has a history and I know not everybody thinks like me :-) Jettro On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:46 AM, wrote: > In any open-source project there is expected to be some differences in > individual coding styles. There is often also incomplete understanding of > the reasoning behind the multitude of architectural decisions made during > development, or the history of the project. It is thus important to be > pragmatic, and therefore each issue or question is basically its own topic, > evaluated on its own merits. > > Probably the best way to deal with each *individual* concern or question is > to open a jira ticket expressing that concern. Discussion should then be > done within the context of that ticket. There is no guarantee, of course, > that the ticket will be acted upon, but at least it will be discussed. > > Karl > > > From: jettro.coenra...@gmail.com [jettro.coenra...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > ext Jettro Coenradie [jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl] > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:17 AM > To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not > > I can understand that it is harder to do. Therefore it is better notto do > it > right now. I do not agree with you that it is easier to move files from one > package to another. The fact that these classes have different impact > should > make you think before moving the classes. I would like to discuss on some > of > these design/code issues more as well. What is the best way to do this? Ask > a question per topic to share opinions? > > thanks Jettro > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:54 AM, wrote: > > > Unfortunately that is way harder to do using the python scripts I have > > developed for this purpose. Also, the reason the LCF root class appears > in > > different packages has to do with the relative ease that grants to moving > > classes between the various acf jars. So I'd consider this proposed > change > > to be controversial, and I don't think we should layer it in without > > separate consideration. > > > > Karl > > > > ________________ > > From: ext Simon Willnauer [simon.willna...@googlemail.com] > > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:40 AM > > To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Jettro Coenradie > > wrote: > > > If we are changing stuff can we also use more descriptive names. Not > Use > > LCF > > > 4 to 5 times in a different Package. Use something like ACFAgent and > > > ACFCrawler > > +1 for that too! > > > > simon > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Jettro Coenradie < > > > jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl> wrote: > > > > > >> +1 for a complete change > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Mark Miller > >wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 to renaming the package - nows the time. > > >>> > > >>> - Mark > > >>> > > >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile) > > >>> > > >>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, "Jack Krupansky" < > > >>> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > +1 > > >>> > > > >>> > -- Jack Krupansky > > >>> > > > >>> > -- > > >>> > From: "Karl Wright" > > >>> > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM > > >>> > To: "connectors-dev" > > >>> > Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not > > >>> > > > >>> >> Consider this an official request for a vote. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the > source > > >>> code, as > > >>> >> soon as is practical: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx > > >>> >> All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to > ACF.java > > >>> and > > >>> >> ACFException.java > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing > > database > > >>> >> instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this > > >>> change. > > >>> >> This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the > > >>> database > > >>> >> when the connector is registered. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the > disruption. > > >>> But I > > >>> >> will of course abide by the consensus.) > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early > > (and > > >>> >> often. ;-)) > > >>> >> Karl > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jettro Coenradie > > >> http://www.gridshore.nl > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jettro Coenradie > > > http://www.gridshore.nl > > > > > > > > > -- > Jettro Coenradie > http://www.gridshore.nl > -- Jettro Coenradie http://www.gridshore.nl
RE: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
In any open-source project there is expected to be some differences in individual coding styles. There is often also incomplete understanding of the reasoning behind the multitude of architectural decisions made during development, or the history of the project. It is thus important to be pragmatic, and therefore each issue or question is basically its own topic, evaluated on its own merits. Probably the best way to deal with each *individual* concern or question is to open a jira ticket expressing that concern. Discussion should then be done within the context of that ticket. There is no guarantee, of course, that the ticket will be acted upon, but at least it will be discussed. Karl From: jettro.coenra...@gmail.com [jettro.coenra...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie [jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:17 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not I can understand that it is harder to do. Therefore it is better notto do it right now. I do not agree with you that it is easier to move files from one package to another. The fact that these classes have different impact should make you think before moving the classes. I would like to discuss on some of these design/code issues more as well. What is the best way to do this? Ask a question per topic to share opinions? thanks Jettro On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:54 AM, wrote: > Unfortunately that is way harder to do using the python scripts I have > developed for this purpose. Also, the reason the LCF root class appears in > different packages has to do with the relative ease that grants to moving > classes between the various acf jars. So I'd consider this proposed change > to be controversial, and I don't think we should layer it in without > separate consideration. > > Karl > > > From: ext Simon Willnauer [simon.willna...@googlemail.com] > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:40 AM > To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Jettro Coenradie > wrote: > > If we are changing stuff can we also use more descriptive names. Not Use > LCF > > 4 to 5 times in a different Package. Use something like ACFAgent and > > ACFCrawler > +1 for that too! > > simon > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Jettro Coenradie < > > jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl> wrote: > > > >> +1 for a complete change > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Mark Miller >wrote: > >> > >>> +1 to renaming the package - nows the time. > >>> > >>> - Mark > >>> > >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile) > >>> > >>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, "Jack Krupansky" < > >>> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > +1 > >>> > > >>> > -- Jack Krupansky > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > From: "Karl Wright" > >>> > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM > >>> > To: "connectors-dev" > >>> > Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not > >>> > > >>> >> Consider this an official request for a vote. > >>> >> > >>> >> +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source > >>> code, as > >>> >> soon as is practical: > >>> >> > >>> >> org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx > >>> >> All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java > >>> and > >>> >> ACFException.java > >>> >> > >>> >> Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing > database > >>> >> instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this > >>> change. > >>> >> This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the > >>> database > >>> >> when the connector is registered. > >>> >> > >>> >> (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. > >>> But I > >>> >> will of course abide by the consensus.) > >>> >> > >>> >> Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early > (and > >>> >> often. ;-)) > >>> >> Karl > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jettro Coenradie > >> http://www.gridshore.nl > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jettro Coenradie > > http://www.gridshore.nl > > > -- Jettro Coenradie http://www.gridshore.nl
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
I can understand that it is harder to do. Therefore it is better notto do it right now. I do not agree with you that it is easier to move files from one package to another. The fact that these classes have different impact should make you think before moving the classes. I would like to discuss on some of these design/code issues more as well. What is the best way to do this? Ask a question per topic to share opinions? thanks Jettro On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:54 AM, wrote: > Unfortunately that is way harder to do using the python scripts I have > developed for this purpose. Also, the reason the LCF root class appears in > different packages has to do with the relative ease that grants to moving > classes between the various acf jars. So I'd consider this proposed change > to be controversial, and I don't think we should layer it in without > separate consideration. > > Karl > > > From: ext Simon Willnauer [simon.willna...@googlemail.com] > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:40 AM > To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Jettro Coenradie > wrote: > > If we are changing stuff can we also use more descriptive names. Not Use > LCF > > 4 to 5 times in a different Package. Use something like ACFAgent and > > ACFCrawler > +1 for that too! > > simon > > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Jettro Coenradie < > > jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl> wrote: > > > >> +1 for a complete change > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Mark Miller >wrote: > >> > >>> +1 to renaming the package - nows the time. > >>> > >>> - Mark > >>> > >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile) > >>> > >>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, "Jack Krupansky" < > >>> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > +1 > >>> > > >>> > -- Jack Krupansky > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > From: "Karl Wright" > >>> > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM > >>> > To: "connectors-dev" > >>> > Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not > >>> > > >>> >> Consider this an official request for a vote. > >>> >> > >>> >> +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source > >>> code, as > >>> >> soon as is practical: > >>> >> > >>> >> org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx > >>> >> All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java > >>> and > >>> >> ACFException.java > >>> >> > >>> >> Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing > database > >>> >> instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this > >>> change. > >>> >> This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the > >>> database > >>> >> when the connector is registered. > >>> >> > >>> >> (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. > >>> But I > >>> >> will of course abide by the consensus.) > >>> >> > >>> >> Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early > (and > >>> >> often. ;-)) > >>> >> Karl > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jettro Coenradie > >> http://www.gridshore.nl > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jettro Coenradie > > http://www.gridshore.nl > > > -- Jettro Coenradie http://www.gridshore.nl
RE: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
Unfortunately that is way harder to do using the python scripts I have developed for this purpose. Also, the reason the LCF root class appears in different packages has to do with the relative ease that grants to moving classes between the various acf jars. So I'd consider this proposed change to be controversial, and I don't think we should layer it in without separate consideration. Karl From: ext Simon Willnauer [simon.willna...@googlemail.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:40 AM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Jettro Coenradie wrote: > If we are changing stuff can we also use more descriptive names. Not Use LCF > 4 to 5 times in a different Package. Use something like ACFAgent and > ACFCrawler +1 for that too! simon > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Jettro Coenradie < > jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl> wrote: > >> +1 for a complete change >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Mark Miller wrote: >> >>> +1 to renaming the package - nows the time. >>> >>> - Mark >>> >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile) >>> >>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, "Jack Krupansky" < >>> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>> >>> > +1 >>> > >>> > -- Jack Krupansky >>> > >>> > -- >>> > From: "Karl Wright" >>> > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM >>> > To: "connectors-dev" >>> > Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not >>> > >>> >> Consider this an official request for a vote. >>> >> >>> >> +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source >>> code, as >>> >> soon as is practical: >>> >> >>> >> org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx >>> >> All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java >>> and >>> >> ACFException.java >>> >> >>> >> Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing database >>> >> instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this >>> change. >>> >> This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the >>> database >>> >> when the connector is registered. >>> >> >>> >> (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. >>> But I >>> >> will of course abide by the consensus.) >>> >> >>> >> Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early (and >>> >> often. ;-)) >>> >> Karl >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jettro Coenradie >> http://www.gridshore.nl >> > > > > -- > Jettro Coenradie > http://www.gridshore.nl >
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Jettro Coenradie wrote: > If we are changing stuff can we also use more descriptive names. Not Use LCF > 4 to 5 times in a different Package. Use something like ACFAgent and > ACFCrawler +1 for that too! simon > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Jettro Coenradie < > jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl> wrote: > >> +1 for a complete change >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Mark Miller wrote: >> >>> +1 to renaming the package - nows the time. >>> >>> - Mark >>> >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile) >>> >>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, "Jack Krupansky" < >>> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >>> >>> > +1 >>> > >>> > -- Jack Krupansky >>> > >>> > -- >>> > From: "Karl Wright" >>> > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM >>> > To: "connectors-dev" >>> > Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not >>> > >>> >> Consider this an official request for a vote. >>> >> >>> >> +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source >>> code, as >>> >> soon as is practical: >>> >> >>> >> org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx >>> >> All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java >>> and >>> >> ACFException.java >>> >> >>> >> Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing database >>> >> instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this >>> change. >>> >> This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the >>> database >>> >> when the connector is registered. >>> >> >>> >> (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. >>> But I >>> >> will of course abide by the consensus.) >>> >> >>> >> Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early (and >>> >> often. ;-)) >>> >> Karl >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jettro Coenradie >> http://www.gridshore.nl >> > > > > -- > Jettro Coenradie > http://www.gridshore.nl >
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
If we are changing stuff can we also use more descriptive names. Not Use LCF 4 to 5 times in a different Package. Use something like ACFAgent and ACFCrawler On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Jettro Coenradie < jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl> wrote: > +1 for a complete change > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> +1 to renaming the package - nows the time. >> >> - Mark >> >> http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile) >> >> On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, "Jack Krupansky" < >> jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > -- Jack Krupansky >> > >> > -- >> > From: "Karl Wright" >> > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM >> > To: "connectors-dev" >> > Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not >> > >> >> Consider this an official request for a vote. >> >> >> >> +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source >> code, as >> >> soon as is practical: >> >> >> >> org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx >> >> All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java >> and >> >> ACFException.java >> >> >> >> Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing database >> >> instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this >> change. >> >> This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the >> database >> >> when the connector is registered. >> >> >> >> (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. >> But I >> >> will of course abide by the consensus.) >> >> >> >> Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early (and >> >> often. ;-)) >> >> Karl >> > > > > -- > Jettro Coenradie > http://www.gridshore.nl > -- Jettro Coenradie http://www.gridshore.nl
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
+1 for a complete change On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Mark Miller wrote: > +1 to renaming the package - nows the time. > > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile) > > On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, "Jack Krupansky" < > jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > -- Jack Krupansky > > > > -- > > From: "Karl Wright" > > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM > > To: "connectors-dev" > > Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not > > > >> Consider this an official request for a vote. > >> > >> +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source > code, as > >> soon as is practical: > >> > >> org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx > >> All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java and > >> ACFException.java > >> > >> Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing database > >> instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this > change. > >> This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the database > >> when the connector is registered. > >> > >> (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. > But I > >> will of course abide by the consensus.) > >> > >> Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early (and > >> often. ;-)) > >> Karl > -- Jettro Coenradie http://www.gridshore.nl
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
+1 to renaming the package - nows the time. - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile) On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, "Jack Krupansky" wrote: > +1 > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -- > From: "Karl Wright" > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM > To: "connectors-dev" > Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not > >> Consider this an official request for a vote. >> >> +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source code, as >> soon as is practical: >> >> org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx >> All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java and >> ACFException.java >> >> Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing database >> instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this change. >> This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the database >> when the connector is registered. >> >> (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. But I >> will of course abide by the consensus.) >> >> Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early (and >> often. ;-)) >> Karl
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
+1 -- Jack Krupansky -- From: "Karl Wright" Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM To: "connectors-dev" Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not Consider this an official request for a vote. +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source code, as soon as is practical: org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java and ACFException.java Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing database instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this change. This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the database when the connector is registered. (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. But I will of course abide by the consensus.) Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early (and often. ;-)) Karl
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
Karl, is the Fully-Qualified classname in the DB the only problem? I mean you would break all kinds of BW compat if you change the package names. All imports must be fixed etc. One thing I don't get is that LCF has not yet been released, right?! We can fix the DB issues in the code very easily but fixing the import thing etc. is not that easy. I don't see any reason why we should hesitate to rename the package names on an unreleased trunk. People who use trunk follow a moving target anyway. BTW: Did the name change vote succeed? here is my +1 on the package name change provided my assumption above are correct and if the name change vote was successful. simon On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > Consider this an official request for a vote. > > +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source code, as > soon as is practical: > > org.apache.lcf.xxx -> org.apache.acf.xxx > All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java and > ACFException.java > > Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing database > instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this change. > This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the database > when the connector is registered. > > (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. But I > will of course abide by the consensus.) > > Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early (and > often. ;-)) > Karl >
