Sure, let's do meetings every week, where morning/evening alternate. We can also schedule additional meetings if things are unresolved.
So next Wednesday, let's have a 10am PT meeting, and then the following Wednesday we can have a 10pm PT meeting (and so on). Does that sound reasonable? ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:10:13 -0800 > Subject: Re: Summary of IRC Meeting in #apachehelix > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Hi Kanak, > > I am new with Helix and just start playing around to get better grasp > on how it works (got some help from Kishore along the way). > > I think regularly scheduled chat sessions are useful for newbies to > stop by and ask questions or start discussions. > We had it in Apache Shindig for a while and especially near release > candidate generation. > > Not all people could attend due to the distributed nature of > contributors so if it is going to have some IRC chat sessions maybe > alternately done early morning and evening PST to accommodate most > time zones. > > > - Henry > > > 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 >>
