I think having a weekly meeting probably makes sense, that way we can make track items/progress, distribute tasks and its a known venue to discuss the apis further and make sure the ball keeps rolling.
Sandeep On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Kanak Biscuitwala <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Henry, > > We don't currently have scheduled meetings -- this one just happened ad-hoc. > Do you think this is useful/valuable? If so, what frequency do you think > makes sense? > > Other devs: same question. > > Kanak > > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:16:35 -0800 >> Subject: Re: Summary of IRC Meeting in #apachehelix >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> Hi Guys, >> >> Do you guys do this (IIRC chat) every Wednesdays? >> >> - Henry >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:16 PM, ASF IRC Bot >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Summary of IRC Meeting in #apachehelix at Wed Feb 26 05:50:29 2014: >>> >>> Attendees: zzhang1, gmcdonald, osgigeek1, kanakb, kishoreg1 >>> >>> - Preface >>> >>> >>> IRC log follows: >>> >>> ## Preface ## >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:50:35 2014] <gmcdonald>: cool >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:50:38 2014] <kanakb>: sweet >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:50:44 2014] <gmcdonald>: Im outta here, enjoy >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:51:23 2014] <kanakb>: okay anyway >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:51:43 2014] <kanakb>: i think we can use the pattern that >>> osgigeek1 suggested >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:52:07 2014] <kanakb>: i.e. >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:52:21 2014] <kanakb>: new >>> HelixAdministratorBuilder.usingProvider(HelixStoreProvider.ZOOKEEPER).toAddress(zkAddress).build(); >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:52:37 2014] <kanakb>: and >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:53:00 2014] <kanakb>: new >>> HelixAdministratorBuilder.usingProvider(HelixStoreProvider.MYDB).username(username).host(hostname).build() >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:54:19 2014] <kishoreg1>: looks good, >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:54:50 2014] <kishoreg1>: Sandeep, is Provider the right term >>> ? >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:55:00 2014] <osgigeek1>: yes provider is the right term here >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:55:30 2014] <kishoreg1>: ok, sounds good >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:55:52 2014] <osgigeek1>: ok so we now have an instance of >>> HelixAdmin >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:55:59 2014] <kanakb>: ok now how does a participant get an >>> admin? >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:56:16 2014] <kanakb>: participant.getAdmin()? >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:56:22 2014] <kanakb>: spectator.getAdmin()? >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:57:05 2014] <kanakb>: or it could even be a getter within >>> the service class if we go that direction >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:57:58 2014] <kanakb>: but i guess we can come back to that >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:58:01 2014] <osgigeek1>: so before we go to participant >>> should we capture what APIs hang off the HelixAdmin or HelixAdministrator? >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:58:07 2014] <kanakb>: yeah sure >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:58:43 2014] <kishoreg1>: we have two options >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:58:59 2014] <kishoreg1>: #1. flat methods similar to what we >>> have >>> [Wed Feb 26 05:59:49 2014] <kishoreg1>: create/delete/update/read >>> cluster|resource|instance| etc >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:00:33 2014] <kishoreg1>: there will be too many methods in >>> this >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:00:54 2014] <kishoreg1>: #2. heirarchical based on scope >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:01:04 2014] <kishoreg1>: based on scope/entity >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:01:26 2014] <kishoreg1>: clusteradmin resourceadmin >>> instanceadmin >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:01:44 2014] <osgigeek1>: I prefer #1 >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:02:37 2014] <kishoreg1>: how many methods do we think we >>> will have in this interface >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:02:40 2014] <kishoreg1>: 100? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:02:59 2014] <kanakb>: probably 50 >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:03:07 2014] <kanakb>: there are some things we can >>> consolidate >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:03:10 2014] <kishoreg1>: ok >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:03:20 2014] <kanakb>: e.g. the things that involve userconfig >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:03:25 2014] <kanakb>: those can take scope as a parameter >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:03:55 2014] <kishoreg1>: sandeep, you should look at the >>> api's in the current helixadmin >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:03:57 2014] <osgigeek1>: so why do we think it will be 50? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:04:20 2014] <kanakb>: the current number of helixadmin >>> method calls is like 20-30 >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:04:20 2014] <osgigeek1>: looking at it now >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:04:31 2014] <kanakb>: so say it doubles because we cover >>> more use cases >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:04:34 2014] <kanakb>: then it's 50 >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:04:43 2014] <kishoreg1>: there are too many combinations i >>> think, we need to figure out how to reduce this >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:05:33 2014] <osgigeek1>: Can we consider like a command >>> pattern? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:05:48 2014] <osgigeek1>: like I see several >>> addResource(param....) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:05:58 2014] <osgigeek1>: instead how about >>> addResource(ResourceCommand) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:06:15 2014] <kishoreg1>: i like that >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:06:16 2014] <osgigeek1>: the command encapsulates the >>> different params >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:06:24 2014] <osgigeek1>: that way we can decipher from the >>> command >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:06:40 2014] <kanakb>: well, if we're adding using >>> ResourceConfig like in the wiki, then is this still necessary? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:08:14 2014] <kishoreg1>: probably yes, >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:08:28 2014] <kishoreg1>: lets say we want to only update >>> provisionerconfig >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:08:36 2014] <kishoreg1>: we have two options delta >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:12:01 2014] <osgigeek1>: So kanakb I think if command == >>> config and that was the notion then we can go with config >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:12:31 2014] <osgigeek1>: but it appears kishoreg1 is >>> pointing to the something missing >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:13:11 2014] <kishoreg1>: its along the same line but its too >>> generic >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:13:30 2014] <kishoreg1>: There is only one ResourceCommand >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:14:03 2014] <kanakb>: are you suggesting something like >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:14:14 2014] <kanakb>: administrateResource(command, args) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:14:17 2014] <kanakb>: or something to that effect? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:14:33 2014] <kishoreg1>: nope >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:15:15 2014] <kishoreg1>: currently we have >>> updateResource(ResourceCommand) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:16:07 2014] <kishoreg1>: but the usecases are updating >>> partitions, replicas, rebalancerconfig, provisionerconfig etc >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:19:37 2014] <kishoreg1>: >>> https://github.com/apache/helix/blob/master/helix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/helix/HelixAdmin.java >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:22:11 2014] <kishoreg1>: what do u guys think >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:23:15 2014] <osgigeek1>: I did not quite follow the part >>> where kishoreg1 you point to updating partitions, replicas, >>> rebalancerconfig etc can you elaborate? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:23:59 2014] <kishoreg1>: after the resource is created >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:24:42 2014] <kishoreg1>: we might have to update some parts >>> of the resources, for example change the number of partitions from 10 to 20 >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:24:46 2014] <osgigeek1>: ah gotcha >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:24:50 2014] <kishoreg1>: we have two options >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:25:17 2014] <kishoreg1>: have a method called >>> updateParitionNumber(resourceId, numberof partitions) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:25:30 2014] <kishoreg1>: or updateResource(ResourceConfig) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:25:45 2014] <kishoreg1>: updateResource(ResourceConfig.Delta) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:25:51 2014] <osgigeek1>: now I follow >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:25:54 2014] <kishoreg1>: ok >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:26:18 2014] <kishoreg1>: so if we just have one method for >>> all operations, its too overloaded >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:28:34 2014] <osgigeek1>: ok so lets look at the primary >>> entities here >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:29:01 2014] <osgigeek1>: (1) cluster (2) resource (3) >>> instance >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:29:04 2014] <osgigeek1>: am I correct? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:29:25 2014] <kanakb>: arguably partition >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:29:33 2014] <osgigeek1>: ok so 4 >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:30:07 2014] <osgigeek1>: so what if we think of having CRUD >>> operations for those through commands on the HelixAdmin >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:30:42 2014] <osgigeek1>: everything else which is not a >>> primary entity lets say we model on the Command or as a derived object off >>> the correct Command? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:31:26 2014] <kishoreg1>: others I can think of are adding >>> statemodel, constraints etc >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:31:29 2014] <osgigeek1>: e.g. ResourceCommand, >>> ResourceReplicaCommand extends ResourceCommand? or should the >>> ResourceCommand have Replica as a composite ? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:31:59 2014] <kishoreg1>: hmm thinking >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:32:11 2014] <osgigeek1>: I am thinking of statemodel, >>> constraints all as parts that can be attached to the primary entities >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:32:25 2014] <osgigeek1>: arguably not attacheable to all but >>> most I imagine >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:32:30 2014] <kishoreg1>: yes >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:33:10 2014] <kishoreg1>: why should it extend resourcecommand >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:34:02 2014] <osgigeek1>: on a second thought no lets not >>> extend it, the more I think the more little sense it makes >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:34:19 2014] <osgigeek1>: I think this is what kanakb >>> modelled in his wiki >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:34:33 2014] <osgigeek1>: a builder which allows attaching >>> the composites into one command >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:34:39 2014] <osgigeek1>: or in his case config >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:35:26 2014] <osgigeek1>: So we have a command builder >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:35:48 2014] <osgigeek1>: >>> ResourceCommandBuilder().usingStateModel().withConstraints().build() >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:36:03 2014] <osgigeek1>: >>> InstanceCommandBuilder().withConstraints().build() >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:36:30 2014] <kishoreg1>: hmm >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:36:56 2014] <osgigeek1>: so the key thing I am after is >>> separating the primary entities >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:37:01 2014] <osgigeek1>: and calling them out at the top >>> level >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:37:10 2014] <kishoreg1>: do we need builder pattern for >>> commands >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:38:57 2014] <osgigeek1>: Lets ask this question a bit >>> differently >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:39:17 2014] <osgigeek1>: how well defined are the commands, >>> do we think they are pretty well formalized? Do we foresee them changing ? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:40:01 2014] <zzhang1>: we may add new fields to the configs >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:40:16 2014] <kishoreg1>: they might change but most likely >>> we will be adding new stuff >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:40:33 2014] <kishoreg1>: yeah, agree with jason >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:40:42 2014] <osgigeek1>: the new stuff added would that be >>> in existing buckets of statemodel, constraints? I imagine yes >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:41:01 2014] <kishoreg1>: yes, >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:41:41 2014] <osgigeek1>: my instinct tells me its better to >>> hide the command objects and give builders >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:41:52 2014] <osgigeek1>: but you guys would be better judges >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:42:29 2014] <osgigeek1>: when I say hide I mean not give out >>> the setters >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:42:30 2014] <kishoreg1>: we can come to builders v/s >>> concrete after we decide how many command classes we will have >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:42:40 2014] <osgigeek1>: yeah lets do that >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:43:16 2014] <kishoreg1>: lets take simple cases like change >>> partition, replica >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:43:32 2014] <osgigeek1>: ok >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:43:45 2014] <kishoreg1>: or some flags in idealstate like >>> enable/disable >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:44:01 2014] <kanakb>: enable/disable resource? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:44:21 2014] <kishoreg1>: resource, bucketization, group >>> message mode >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:44:24 2014] <kishoreg1>: etc >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:44:32 2014] <kanakb>: right >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:45:16 2014] <kishoreg1>: so we have these options >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:46:07 2014] <kishoreg1>: #1 direct method in helixadmin >>> admin.updateNumPartitions(resourceId, 20) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:47:06 2014] <kishoreg1>: #2. config delta method, >>> resource.delta= ..., delta.setpartitions(20), >>> admin.updateresource(resourcedelta) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:47:33 2014] <zzhang1>: i prefer #2, it saves lots of >>> admin#methods >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:47:45 2014] <osgigeek1>: may I ask this and you will see >>> where I am going with this... what do we return on >>> helixAdmin.addResource(ResourceCommand) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:48:04 2014] <osgigeek1>: void? HelixResource? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:48:20 2014] <kishoreg1>: #3. command pattern >>> UpdatePartitionCommand.updatePartitions(20) admin.updateResource(command); >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:48:34 2014] <kishoreg1>: dunno >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:48:58 2014] <kishoreg1>: i will be back in 10-15 minutes >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:48:59 2014] <zzhang1>: currently we are returning void >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:49:37 2014] <kanakb>: i think it should either: return >>> boolean or throw a meaningful checked exception >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:49:59 2014] <osgigeek1>: so should we return a HelixResource? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:50:17 2014] <osgigeek1>: rather I meant to ask why not >>> return a HelixResource? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:51:12 2014] <kanakb>: a resource is a resource config plus >>> runtime state, like its external view >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:51:18 2014] <kanakb>: initially this external view will >>> always be empty >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:51:38 2014] <kanakb>: so it's not super useful to just >>> return that >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:52:24 2014] <kishoreg1>: thats another item, shud we mix >>> runtime and static info in one class >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:52:48 2014] <kishoreg1>: prefer to defer that to a later >>> stage >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:52:51 2014] <osgigeek1>: ok >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:53:05 2014] <osgigeek1>: the reason for the question was >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:53:24 2014] <osgigeek1>: if we return the object we could >>> have ResourceCommand.using(object) >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:53:29 2014] <osgigeek1>: that creates an updateCommand >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:53:37 2014] <osgigeek1>: which then can carry existing state >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:53:58 2014] <kanakb>: the hope is that you don't need >>> existing state in order to make an incremental update >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:54:34 2014] <osgigeek1>: ok so lets forget that route for >>> now, lets go back to the 3 options from kishoreg1 >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:54:48 2014] <osgigeek1>: I am leaning towards #3 >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:55:03 2014] <kanakb>: yeah i like #3 as well >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:55:48 2014] <kanakb>: zzhang1: is #3 generic enough to >>> support things like monitoring config? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:55:52 2014] <kanakb>: my intuition is yes >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:55:59 2014] <zzhang1>: yea >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:56:49 2014] <zzhang1>: for #3, shall we have a command >>> pattern for updating each field? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:57:34 2014] <kishoreg1>: what ever makes sense >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:57:51 2014] <osgigeek1>: zzhang1: I think yes that way we >>> remove APIs like setResourceIdealState from the HelixAdmin >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:57:52 2014] <zzhang1>: ok >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:58:03 2014] <kanakb>: can we do something like >>> updateResource(ResourceCommand... commands)? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:58:25 2014] <kishoreg1>: compositecommands? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:58:28 2014] <osgigeek1>: ooh, multiple commands you mean? >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:58:47 2014] <kanakb>: yeah or a composite command >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:58:57 2014] <osgigeek1>: I think we dont do that for the >>> first iteration >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:59:08 2014] <kanakb>: i would imagine that there are certain >>> configs that we'd like to set together as an atomic unit >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:59:19 2014] <osgigeek1>: what happens if some commands fail >>> and some succeed >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:59:20 2014] <kishoreg1>: yeah i was thinking the same >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:59:31 2014] <kishoreg1>: same as kanakb >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:59:41 2014] <kishoreg1>: for example if i want to change >>> both partition and replica >>> [Wed Feb 26 06:59:44 2014] <kanakb>: osgigeek1: then they should all >>> succeed or all fail >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:00:03 2014] <kanakb>: and it's our responsibility to >>> guarantee that >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:00:25 2014] <kanakb>: fortunately this is generally easy to >>> guarantee in the ZK case >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:00:38 2014] <kanakb>: as long as things don't span znodes >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:00:58 2014] <osgigeek1>: kanakb: if we can guarantee that >>> then sure, I was concerned that it might not be possible given the >>> distributed nature of the system >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:01:46 2014] <kanakb>: there is one interesting case >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:01:48 2014] <kishoreg1>: kanakb: how can we gaurantee things >>> that span multiple znodes >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:01:58 2014] <kanakb>: we'd need to do a rollback or something >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:02:10 2014] <kanakb>: so maybe it's not so easy >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:02:23 2014] <kanakb>: hmm >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:02:50 2014] <kanakb>: right now all our admin apis work on a >>> single znode >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:02:56 2014] <kanakb>: but now that won't be true >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:03:21 2014] <kishoreg1>: yeah, we have rely on the spi to >>> make it atomic >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:03:44 2014] <kishoreg1>: but we might need composite commands >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:04:01 2014] <kishoreg1>: for example what if we want to >>> update both partitions and replicas >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:04:10 2014] <kanakb>: right >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:04:23 2014] <kanakb>: so we either need to allow multiple >>> commands, or a single command that does multiple things >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:04:29 2014] <osgigeek1>: kishoreg1: we should model that as >>> one command which carries both partition change and replica change >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:04:49 2014] <kanakb>: i.e. >>> ResourceCommand.partitions(10).replicas(3)? >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:04:53 2014] <osgigeek1>: yes >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:05:19 2014] <zzhang1>: btw, i think commands like >>> addCluster() will cross multiple znodes >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:05:41 2014] <kanakb>: which brings in the atomic api issues >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:06:12 2014] <kishoreg1>: its upto the implementation, we >>> shud assume all api's are atomic >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:06:36 2014] <osgigeek1>: I think we should make that a >>> principle of the command APIs >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:06:36 2014] <kishoreg1>: we can use multitransaction updates >>> in ZK >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:06:52 2014] <kanakb>: are those available in 3.3.x? >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:07:09 2014] <kishoreg1>: nope 3.4.5 i think >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:07:14 2014] <kishoreg1>: but u already have locks >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:07:18 2014] <kanakb>: yeah >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:07:21 2014] <kanakb>: i was going to say >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:07:27 2014] <kishoreg1>: so its ok to rely on that >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:07:44 2014] <kishoreg1>: what u have is better than multi >>> transactions i think >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:08:09 2014] <kanakb>: well yes and no >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:08:30 2014] <kishoreg1>: anyhow >>> ResourceCommand.partitions(1) will return a type of ResourceCommand? >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:09:39 2014] <osgigeek1>: yes, the builder should allow >>> changing any of the facets i.e. partition or replica of the entity i.e. >>> Resource in this case >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:09:47 2014] <kanakb>: chaining probably isn't possible >>> unless we change it to new ResourceCommand().partitions(1) >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:10:26 2014] <kishoreg1>: ok, i am not good at builder >>> patterns, i hope we dont have too many classes >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:10:38 2014] <kanakb>: that would just be 1 class >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:10:45 2014] <osgigeek1>: yes >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:10:56 2014] <kishoreg1>: ok >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:11:07 2014] <osgigeek1>: i.e. agree with kanakb >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:11:36 2014] <kishoreg1>: ok >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:13:26 2014] <osgigeek1>: ok well I might have to drop off in >>> a few mins ... do you guys plan to carry on for long? >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:13:36 2014] <kanakb>: probably not too long >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:13:43 2014] <kishoreg1>: i think we shud take break as well >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:13:44 2014] <kanakb>: at least we have some direction with >>> admin now >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:14:03 2014] <kishoreg1>: lets write the apis for >>> administrator and see how it looks >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:14:13 2014] <kishoreg1>: i need to get going as well >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:15:05 2014] <kanakb>: ok let's end here? >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:15:10 2014] <osgigeek1>: well this was good, we made good >>> progress, yeah lets end >>> [Wed Feb 26 07:15:37 2014] <kanakb>: ASFBot: meeting end >>> >>> >>> Meeting ended at Wed Feb 26 07:15:37 2014 >
