Hello Bruno, Well this is not something new or a surprise, this is actually in the pipes since beginning of the year (I'd say March from memory but can be february when safeguard started to pass original TCK). I waited for help on that topic proposed since months but since nobody wanted to lead that track I just picked it up last week.
On the help which can be needed: - some cleanup on Future handling, currently the main interceptor (IdGeneratorInterceptor) does not handle futures but only CompletionStage (thanks cause it reminded me I had to open this issue on the spec -> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/362). - we can think to do as in other implementation and extract what can be extracted in a common library. I spent only very few time thinking of it but it seems the logic we can extract is quite specific to MP and not reusable that widely from my quick look (for example the circuit breaker of the spec is not that mainstream). That said another pair of eyes can be worth it. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le lun. 3 déc. 2018 à 11:41, Bruno Baptista <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Romain, > > Sorry for not replying sooner. > > That branch is a total rewrite of the project, the use of multiple > interceptors is against the spec, Independently of considering the simple > interceptor right or wrong. I see there is a MP issue debating that, but > unless there's an obvious requirement to change it, I predict it will stay > the same. > > The PR goes against the ideas I had... Keep changes limited, keep the test > separated, etc. It's frustrating for me, but I don't mind pointing the > project in some other direction. My redline is to keep Failsafe. > > Saying this, and because you seem to have came up with a masterplan of > your own, could you please create some jira issues enabling other people to > collaborate with your? Where do you want my help? > > Regards. > Bruno Baptista > https://twitter.com/brunobat_ > > > On 25/11/18 19:15, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Hi guys, > > Created a quick (actually took me 1h so not that quick :D) PoC to show > what I have in mind for safeguard, long story short i just followed the > points of this mail and put some "mock" code > to illustrate the idea enough (for instance the circuit breaker impl is > not yet ready, it is just a simple fork of commons-lang flavor and all TCK > are not passing). > > Here is the branch: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=geronimo-safeguard.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/api-cdi-tck-refactoring > > I really the simplification it brings on the user land since everything > becomes CDI and overriding any part of the runtime becomes easy now. > It also enables you to check why dropping failsafe is not scary. > > I will probably try to make this branch passing - note that i upgraded the > spec version so it misses some code, in particular regarding metrics - in > the coming weeks. > > Let me know what you think about that path and the alignment with all > other impl we host. > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> > > > Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 11:30, Bruno Baptista <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> Thanks Romain! >> Bruno Baptista >> http://twitter.com/brunobat_ >> >> >> On 07/09/2018 07:57, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> >> Dropping a lib looks big until it is done ;). Actually it will also allow >> us to drop all the bridge layers and builders which can make the lib way >> simpler for future contribution. >> >> But no issue supporting 1.2 first. >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >> >> >> Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 08:50, Bruno Baptista <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >>> Hi Romain, >>> >>> Dropping failsafe altogether seems quite a big task, between >>> re-implementation and testing. Would start on the support of Microprofile >>> Fault Tolerance 1.2 right away and migrate bits of failsafe along the way, >>> work for you guys? >>> >>> Cheers. >>> Bruno Baptista >>> http://twitter.com/brunobat_ >>> >>> >>> On 30/08/2018 11:00, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bruno, >>> >>> Nothing crazy AFAIK, the only task I have in mind (but is not yet >>> started) was to drop failsafe dependency to align this library on other >>> geronimo ones (dep free) >>> and own the implementation. >>> >>> Feel free to grab any task you want. >>> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >>> >>> >>> Le jeu. 30 août 2018 à 11:58, [email protected] <[email protected]> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I'm interested in contributing to Geronimo Safegard and help to add the >>>> new features in the upcoming Fault Tolerance 1.2 Spec. >>>> Is there any work being executed or currently planed for this library? >>>> Cheers! >>>> -- >>>> Bruno Baptista >>>> http://twitter.com/brunobat_ >>>> >>> >>> >>
