On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 3/14/12 10:52 PM, Selcuk AYA a écrit : > >> HI All, >> Sorry for the earlier email. I think I owe some explaination on my >> part. The reason for my request is purely technical, does not aim at >> oss spirit or any other spirit for that matter: >> * There are quite a number of files the txn branch is touching. >> * There is no file ownership or review process. >> >> combined with the timing limitation, it becomes hard for me to track >> all changes and cleanup if necessary. When I am doing my changes and >> need to change some existing stuff, I usually try to find the guy who >> wrote the code and get an ack from him and this usually helps a lot >> because even things that look stupid might have some reason to be >> there. Please do the same while changing the txn branch.If this >> process is followed, we wont have to discuss spirit hurting through >> reverting code. > > np. We can consider that the branch is your sandbox, and i'll keep it alone, > just let me know. > > Look, I'm not trying to collide with what you are doing, Selcuk. Just trying > to add the necessary doco and clarification (ie, logs, formating) to get > people used with the code. If the code is not finished yet, and can keep > away from it atm, just say so. > > I'm pretty sure we need to communicate more here to avoid such issues : > - telling what's going on through the exposure of a roadmap > - being more reactive (like just ack mails even if one does not have time to > give a clear answer) > > Regarding the changed code, let me give you some clue about the reason I did > those changes : > when you log some LogEdit, the records are stored in a file and will have to > be read at some point. The externalizable classes have readExternal() > methods which expect the byte[] to contain the expected content. Currently, > we can do that if : > - we have stored only one type of object (like Entry) > - we have stored mixed data in a specific order, which allows the code to > deserialize the classes without adding a type. > > I guess that the intention was to deserialize data expecting the serialized > structure will always be : > - TXN_BEGIN > - a DATA_CONTAINER > - TXN_COMMIT or TXN_ABORT > > Here, I see one issues : in one case, we won't have any DATA_CONTAINER > (specifically when doing a BIND). We won't then be able to distinguish > between a TXN_BEGIN/DATA/TXN_COMMIT and a TXN_BEGIN/TXN_COMMIT if we don't > have an extra information, the type. > > Unless there is something that can be used to make this distinction... > > Can you enlight me here, in cas I'm doing something wrong ? >
I will have a look at the code your tomorrow morning time and let you know. > Thanks ! > > > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com >
