If there are arguments against it, then lets keep the discussion going. I’m
fine with sorting as well - it was requested by someone else to optimize this.
However, just to play devil’s advocate: where would you need a sorted list of
strategies rather than just needing the best fit?
--
Chris Suich
chris.su...@netapp.com
NetApp Software Engineer
Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
On Oct 23, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So your asking to not use the sorting logic and instead do the style of
>
> Priority highestPriority = Priority.CANT_HANDLE;
> Priority priority = strategy.canHandle(...);
> if (priority.ordinal() > highestPriority.ordinal()) {
> highestPriority = priority;
> strategyToUse = strategy;
> }
>
> The problem I have with the above style is that its never possible to
> get a sorted collection of strategies. That logic just allow you to
> get the best match. If you look at
> org.apache.cloudstack.engine.subsystem.api.storage.StorageStrategyFactory
> there are methods to get the first item and a collection. In terms of
> efficiently, it doesn't matter, were really optimizing a couple of CPU
> cycles.
>
> Darren
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, SuichII, Christopher
> <chris.su...@netapp.com> wrote:
>> Take a look at revision 3 of my changes here:
>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/14522/diff/3/#index_header
>>
>> The changes I made were due to discussion in the reviews. It should be
>> simpler, cleaner and more efficient logic than using comparators.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Suich
>> chris.su...@netapp.com
>> NetApp Software Engineer
>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I don't follow your question. I have time today. What would
>> you like me to do? As it stands right now, what is on master, I'm not
>> aware of any issues.
>>
>> Darren
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM, SuichII, Christopher
>> <chris.su...@netapp.com> wrote:
>>
>> Darren,
>>
>> Would you be able to look into copy the logic back into your refactoring
>> today or tomorrow? If not, I may be able to in the morning.
>>
>> -Chris
>> --
>> Chris Suich
>> chris.su...@netapp.com
>> NetApp Software Engineer
>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:56 PM, SuichII, Christopher <chris.su...@netapp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding is that it is still a work in progress to get those test
>> back running. Is this correct, Edison?
>>
>> --
>> Chris Suich
>> chris.su...@netapp.com
>> NetApp Software Engineer
>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I fixed all the compilation errors in engine/storage/integration-test.
>> I don't know how to run those test though, so I can't validate the
>> changes.
>>
>> Darren
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, SuichII, Christopher
>> <chris.su...@netapp.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yep. I’m running on a clean master.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Suich
>> chris.su...@netapp.com
>> NetApp Software Engineer
>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Okay let me look at that. Are you 100% sure your looking at a clean version
>> of master?
>>
>> Darren
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 1:17 PM, "SuichII, Christopher" <chris.su...@netapp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Er, sorry. That was poorly worded on my part. Some classes, like
>> SnapshotTest.java and all the storage providers, did not get updated
>> references to your refactoring. They still reference
>> StrategyPriority.pickStrategy(), etc. Additionally, I changed the
>> pickStrategy() logic from using a comparator to looping over the list once
>> keeping a reference to the best result. This logic was lost in the merge.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Suich
>> chris.su...@netapp.com
>> NetApp Software Engineer
>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The transaction API was changed in the merge. I could have maybe
>> missed updating a class. Let me check. When you said "It looks like
>> the changes from us didn’t make it through your merge at all," can you
>> point to something specific that got lost?
>>
>> Darren
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM, SuichII, Christopher
>> <chris.su...@netapp.com> wrote:
>>
>> And it looks like some of your changes may have not merged correctly. I’m
>> getting compile errors like:
>>
>> The method close() is undefined for the type Transaction
>>
>> This shouldn’t have come from our merge.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Suich
>> chris.su...@netapp.com
>> NetApp Software Engineer
>> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions
>> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Chris, Edison,
>>
>> You guys just committed 'Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot.' At
>> the same time I was merging both my txn-refactor and
>> spring-modularization branches. They are really tricky merges and
>> each time I have to rebase it takes awhile to figure out. Anyhow,
>> your change + my changes breaks master. So I quickly rebased rb14823
>> and committed to master. rb14823 is the patch that makes the Storage
>> Strategies work with my spring work plus clean up some things.
>> Additionally I found out you can't inject List<SnapshotStrategy> to
>> the Snapshot object, so we really have to go with my change to
>> centralize the ownership of the strategies to a single class.
>>
>> Can you please pull master and revalidate that I didn't break
>> anything, if its not too much of a pain.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Darren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
