From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On the one hand, you say that you are willing to accept the group's > decisions, on the other hand you are doing everything that you can to reject > them.
Actually I am not, - I am trying to help get the interface solid. See emails and help in solidfying proposal you have sent out (minus abstractions) - haven't voted -1 - Said that if significant number of commiters vote on this, I'll be happy to go along. I you read any email I sent, and conversation over IM, you will notice I do not object to change but the timing of this. This was based on release schedule that was posted. I have just finished testing a scheduler impl with cleanup and javadocs etc. Will sent it around if you want to test it out. I really can't test Peter's patch because he has not posted the fixed code. Danny had problems with Peter's patch. My patch works better than current release. So should we not look at alternatives because of a patch sent by Andrei 1 month back. There were 2 issues Service Refactoring and watchdog. The combination does mean significant change in the handler interaction. This should be done as a proposal and put for voting. That is the standard way. Harmeet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:43 PM Subject: RE: Scheduler Interface > Harmeet, > > You, yourself, have held up this issue for over a week, distracting everyone > from the work of getting out the release. Instead of integrating code, > testing, and working on resolving any defects, we've been going round and > round on this issue with you. > > The code was first contributed months ago, and is specifically to fix bugs > in the code. And since your code still needs work, and wasn't submitted "in > time", I am not inclined to accept your tactic of using the schedule as an > excuse to take your code by default. > > > This is not the time to redesign. Please do impact analysis > > There is NO RE-DESIGN OF THE HANDLERS, the code was contributed months ago, > the impact analysis has already been included in many messages from Peter > and myself. I've also mentioned the impact of your code. You have not > contributed one constructive objection to the change, other than that you > don't want a change and you are concerned about threads. I have suggested > both a means to support your implementation AND discussed threading with > you. > > On the one hand, you say that you are willing to accept the group's > decisions, on the other hand you are doing everything that you can to reject > them. > > You've asked for a vote. I've called it. > > --- Noel > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
