I myself feel best with "CTR" since I think it encourages more activity.
But I'm very open for arguments in the other direction.


2013/7/22 Matt Franklin <[email protected]>

> This also brings up the question as to what type of community MetaModel
> is/wants to be.  Are we Review Then Commit (RTC) or Commit Then Review
> (CTR)?  There are positives and negatives to both approaches, but most
> communities I have seen are CTR.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Kasper,
> >
> > You could just attach proposed patch here and review through list for a
> > while. I have pinged INFRA about the JIRA component.
> >
> > I will also try to get reviewboard (https://reviews.apache.org) for
> > MetaModel
> >
> > - Henry
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Kasper Sørensen <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I have a few improvements to the fluent Query builder API, that I would
> > > like to commit.
> > >
> > > Basically the fluent Query builder API supports building joins, but
> only
> > if
> > > you've already traversed Table and Column objects from the schema
> model.
> > > What I would like to improve is to add String-based builder methods so
> > that
> > > instead of something quite verbose like this...
> > >
> > > Table table1 = dataContext.getTableByName("table1");
> > > Column col1 = table1.getColumnByName("col1");
> > >
> > > Table table2 = dataContext.getTableByName("table2");
> > > Column col2 = table2.getColumnByName("col2");
> > >
> > > DataSet ds = dataContext.query()
> > >     .from(table1).innerJoin(table2).on(col1, col2).execute();
> > >
> > >
> > > One could alternatively just use the table/column names directly in the
> > > builder API, like this:
> > >
> > > DataSet ds = dataContext.query()
> > >     .from("table1").innerJoin("table2").on("col1", "col2").execute();
> > >
> > >
> > > Since we dont have JIRA up and running yet, I didn't find a proper way
> to
> > > add this as an improvement anywhere. Should I just commit anyway, or
> hold
> > > my commit until JIRA is up? Or are there any objections to the
> > improvement?
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to