Hey Guys, On 12/19/12 6:08 PM, "Suresh Marru" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I agree with Chris. My opinion is discussions should be discouraged but >are ok to have as long as they are properly summarized and solicited for >further comments on the mailing list. But *decisions* are certainly not >acceptable. Lets please use mailing lists as much as possible for >reviews. > >Hi Chris, > >Thanks for pointing this out, not to single out Chathuri here, but these >discussions have been more prominent these days and lets all collectively >avoid them. I will be more vigilant as well. Thanks appreciate it, Suresh. Not singling out Chathuri -- it was a great job to bring this discussion back on list, just pointing out that it's a discussion until a decision is made here. Great work keep it up guys. Cheers, Chris > > >Suresh > >On Dec 19, 2012, at 7:00 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Guys, >> >> One thing that concerns me about this thread is "offline discussions" >>and >> *things we decided upon*. >> >> At Apache, all decisions happen on the mailing lists, so can you please >> elaborate? >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> On 12/19/12 7:00 AM, "Chathuri Wimalasena" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Devs, >>> >>> We had some offline discussions regarding Airavata API and following >>>are >>> some of the improvements that we decided on. >>> >>> - *Change the name of AiravataManager in AiravataAPI interface* >>> - *Providing utility class for creating the ServiceDescriptor and all >>> the application creation (Look at the util class <DescriptorUtil> >>> provided >>> in REST service).* >>> - *saveDeploymentDescription method should jus get a Host and Service >>> descriptor objects rather passing the names.* >>> - Instead of having single save method for both add and update, we >>> should have separate methods for those functionalities >>> - *Remove isExist check from the save methods, ideally when we >>> introduce >>> above add and update functions separately, this will become obsolete.* >>> - *Use ApplicationDescriptor in all the places.* >>> - *Overload saveWorkflow function and pass the URI of a workflow >>>path.* >>> - *Add the method - getWorkflowTemplateIds in integration tests.* >>> - *Adding tests for workflow metadata saving in integration test.* >>> - *We need fill up all the arguments in runExperiment method to show >>> the >>> users how they are suppose to use the method.* >>> - *Adding tests for querying by Experiment name.* >>> - *Add tests for all the runExperiment overloaded methods.* >>> - *Put API comments for runExperiment and other methods.* >>> - *For the test case we need implement the pulling and pushing the >>> status of the workflow. Pulling from registry and get the pull >>>messages >>> from notification.* >>> - *Add a stopMonitoring function to ExecutionManager* >>> - *Improvements to runExperiment() method >>> * >>> - we need to get rid of all 6 overloaded methods >>> - keeping the simple one as it is and passing a bean object for >>> advance cases >>> - giving different names for method signatures if the usage for >>> the API user is different >>> - having fine grained exception types >>> - ContextHeaderBuilder >>> - revamp the schema >>> - get rid of unused parameters in ContextHeaderBuilder class >>> - instead of having single ContextHeaderBuilder class, have >>> different classes according to usage >>> - scheduling >>> - output handling >>> - security >>> >>> Plan is to do all the suggested improvements before 0.6 release except >>>for >>> security section of ContextHeaderBuilder class improvement. >>> >>> All your feedback is most welcome. >>> >>> Thanks and Regards, >>> Chathuri >> >
