On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:27:45 -0700, Otto Fowler wrote:
Sirona is gone, it is a closed incubator project. Romain has forked
it to
his own repo.
The code is there; the rationale is the same: some functionality
started "here" and got "there".
Is anyone interested to get (part of) it back "here"?
Gilles
On March 20, 2018 at 18:24:06, Gilles (gil...@harfang.homelinux.org)
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:00:41 -0700, Otto Fowler wrote:
If monitoring was started a new, and not re-viving the old
monitoring?
Can the feature be contributed to "Sirona"? Otto, are you
interested in this?
Does it make sense to have "Commons Monitoring" revived based
on part/all of "Sirona"?
Romain, are you interested in this?
What would be the scope/description of "Commons Monitoring"?
Noting Romain's experience that the original "Commons" project
evolved into "Sirona", it would be strange to start from scratch
without a plan to not follow the same route again...
Gilles
On March 20, 2018 at 17:56:44, Bruno P. Kinoshita (
brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid) wrote:
I think StopWatch and CircuitBreakers could be moved together to the
same
component. However, a circuit breaker can be time-related, or not
(e.g. a
circuit breaker for memory size). So probably commons-timing could
be
a
good place for StopWatch, but maybe not for circuit-breaker. But I
think
both could be under commons-monitoring perhaps?
From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>
To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>; Commons Developers
List <
dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?
I would love to get this on track. I apologize if I have made it
more
confusing than it needs to be,
I’m trying to be open to all the suggestions.
If we assume that stack watch is worth ‘having’, then the question
is
where
to put it.
commons-monitoring / sirota seems to me to be a ‘complete’ solution
as
opposed to
a set of or collection of like classes.
Setting the community support / project aspect of sirota aside, it
seems
strange to put
a separate class into a more complete and uniform system. Unless
there is
some generically
useful set of timing utility classes that could be taken out of
sirota to
go into commons-????,
along with things identified ( StopWatch?) out of commons lang and
possibly
other commons projects.
commons-timing seems reasonable. Thoughts?
On March 17, 2018 at 11:24:32, Romain Manni-Bucau
(rmannibu...@gmail.com)
wrote:
Yes but consequence was a lack of community increase which is a
killer for
an incubator project on the long run.
Le 17 mars 2018 15:19, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> a
écrit :
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:47:40 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Le 17 mars 2018 11:49, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> a
écrit :
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:13:39 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
2018-03-15 14:36 GMT+01:00 Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>:
If we can come to consensus on the way forward, I’ll be happy to
do the
work ( although I’ll need help of course ).
I guess I’m the straw that broke the camel’s back then? ;)
On March 15, 2018 at 08:09:45, Gilles
(gil...@harfang.homelinux.org)
wrote:
Hi.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:52:58 -0700, Otto Fowler wrote:
> I think bringing back commons-monitoring/sirota would only be
> possible if
> it were to be modular enough that you could bring in the
‘core’
> classes
> without needing to bring in all of what sirota ended up being,
which
> was an
> end to end solution.
Isn't it possible? [I didn't look; Romain should tell whether he
would be interested in taking that route.]
Sirona was done modular, just the API, the in memory part,
etc...
But this kind of impl needs way more just after so not sure it
does
worth
splitting it to put it back altogether after.
What is the rational to try to push a very small part @commons
instead
of
creating a community @incubator with an E2E solution? This is
what
I
fail
to see.
My experience - coming exactly from here - tends to make me think
commons
will not fit very long or will not bring enough value pretty
quickly
but
that's just my opinion.
Not "just" an opinion since you evoke Sirona's precursor as being
the kind of component we'd reinstate. Unless we learn
1. why the precursor needed to become TLP, and
2. why the TLP didn't succeed,
we'd go in circles.
We failed at community@asf and pby communication/promotion levels
I
think.
Other parts were successful (prod etc).
[It seems that part of your message went missing.]
Lack of marketing skills should not entail failure, especially
not since communication is a transverse concern.
Gilles
Would it make sense that Sirona becomes (again?) "Commons
Monitoring"?
Does the "StackWatck" (Otto's contribution that started this
discussion)
already exist in a Sirona module? If not, can it be done, so that
usage
is similar to what Otto had in mind?
Regards,
Gilles
commons-monitoring or commons-timing seem to be the correct thing
> however,
> but I would like to think that there would be more impetus
I'm afraid that it's rather the lack of manpower.
[And my inner conviction is that that state of things often
led to rush to cramming more code into existing components,
rather than "distribute" more uniformly according to subject
matters. When scarce human resources ("community") disappear,
cruft accumulates, sometimes up to stifle clean-up, maintenance,
improvement, and even development.]
> to do this than
> thinking StackWatch is ‘too big’ for lang.time.
It isn't any more than many other functionalities that were
introduced but shouldn't have been.
Depending on what the "Commons" PMC wants to favour ("code"
*or* "community"?), the choice is between continuing with the
accumulation, or back-pedaling through the creation of as
many *real* components as they are developers willing to
maintain them.
> It really isn’t that complicated a thing.
Sure.
The issue is somewhere else.
Note that, personally, I hadn't imagined that there would
be an issue for regular developers of [Lang] (or I wouldn't
have spent time reviewing the "details" ;-).
But I of course agree that the question should be asked; the
more so that, with [Math], we've a striking example of what
awaits a library that lacks boundary checks and explicit
road map.
Regards,
Gilles
> On March 8, 2018 at 11:50:17, Gilles
(gil...@harfang.homelinux.org)
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:03:24 +0000, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> -1 to "commons-misc". It feels to me like a copout and
unfocused
>> like
>> SomethingUtils.
>> We need a proper home.
>
> +1
>
>> How about the idea of commons-measure.
>
> Just because the first feature would happen to be a timer?
> What other content do you foresee?
>
>> Then there
>> still the idea of resurrecting other Apache projects. Kind of
going
>> in
>> circles...
>
> Indeed, IIRC the questions were asked (whether the feature
could
> be contributed to ex-Sirona and whether that project would be
> repatriated to "Commons") but not answered (unless I'm
mistaken)...
>
> Best,
> Gilles
>
>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2018 08:58, "Otto Fowler" <ottobackwa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> So, could think about commons-misc or something?
>> I don’t think we are going to come up with a perfect module
for
>> these
>> things.
>>
>> Maybe the way it can work is:
>>
>> commons-misc exists.
>>
>> It is the landing place for things that seem to be outside
the
scope
>> of
>> commons-xxxx, but don’t justify
>> a new module or sandbox effort.
>>
>> Things in misc can be reevaluated for inclusion in new
modules
at
>> things
>> go, and at that point @Depricated
>> out of misc.
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>> On March 3, 2018 at 00:42:12, Matt Sicker (boa...@gmail.com)
wrote:
>>
>> On 2 March 2018 at 13:31, Oliver Heger
>> <oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> One other suggestion: It was stated in the past that the
concurrent
>>> classes are also a bit out of scope for [lang], especially
the
>>> circuit
>>> breaker implementations. Would it make sense to move those
into a
>>> new
>>> module, and could this be a home for the watch classes, too?
>>>
>>
>> Considering the amount of retry libraries there are out
there,
I
>> think it
>> makes perfect sense for circuit breaker libraries to be their
own
>> thing,
>> too. See Hysterix for example.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
