Maciej, I am trying to understand expectations around how the ODE project plans to work. Based on past exchanges you made the following comment:
I think the versioning changes will require an understanding of how the feature would be implemented -- a design reveiew. As for the scratch vs patch, scratch is called for when multiple developers are going to be involved in developing a feature.
and Alex made the following comment:
An idea: you could also create a temporary branch to make it easier to share, collaborate and merge/synchronize the code if you think the scope warrants it.
Now I think I hear you saying that the interface is not stable and folks should not be surprised if it should change ( i.e. adding versioning ) without notification/discussion and at some future point in time we may decide to lock it down. I find the following comment subjective:
but on the whole I feel that the changes I made were only getting us closer to the intent of the group WRT deployment.
So I am struggling with expectations around design/interface changes. I personally would like to see discussion around changes to the public interface before being checked into the trunk. For example; I would like more information around some questions I had on methods added to the BpelServer interface. However, if there is consensus that the group would rather work within a more fluid environment that is fine with me. In this more fluid environment I don't think we can fault folks for their subjective view on interface/implementation changes and the only thing we can do is ask questions and make suggestions after the fact. Again, I can work in either environment but I would really like to hear from folks and come up with a consensus on how they see the development process working. Thanks, Lance On 8/15/06, Maciej Szefler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lance, We previously discussed the fact that the deployment methods on the BpelServer interface were not stable / final. These changes were driven by the fact that we had earlier introduced a new deployment descriptor / packaging format that was more in-line with the DeploymentAPI document and as a practical matter needed to eliminate the old PXE deployment descriptor format to prevent confusion and maintain compatibility with the JBI IL. I think on the deployment end we still have some ways to go before we can consider the API to be stable, but on the whole I feel that the changes I made were only getting us closer to the intent of the group WRT deployment. -Maciej On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:47 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote: > With this refactor I now see a public interface "DeploymentUnit" ( add > into the trunk on 8/2 ) is no longer referenced by either of the IL > implementations and so I question its use as a public interface. Also, > BpelServer.deploy () has changed as well. > > I feel like the public API is thrashing and I would like to formally > ask that changes to the API be proposed on the mailing list. I think > review is necessary on the public API. > > Thoughts - other suggests? >
