While complete consensus isn't achievable, this is just a code change that's only needs a majority vote (even a -1 isn't blocking). Can we just delete this class and move on?
--
Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies
http://www.lokitech.com/
Peter M. Goldstein wrote:
Harmeet et al,- There is no loss in keeping BaseHandler except for cleanup value. - I think it is going to be useful as there will be common code in handlers that would be best handled in base class. There have been patches/cleanups proposed but not committed that you pointed out. There may be more in future. Why don't you leave BaseHandler where it is for now and see if therearesome patterns across handlers that can be refactored into base.
I find this logic ridiculous. And I just don't buy it. It just doesn't
explain the almost religious devotion you've expressed to
BaseConnectionHandler in the face of all logic and reason. Even here
you can't express an actual commonality that the BaseConnectionHandler
would take advantage of measured against a clear benefit (what you refer
to as cleanup).
We have repeatedly stated that if and when a need for
BaseConnectionHandler or its like arose, we would introduce such a
class. But it's clear from the current code base and from the proposed
patch that almost zero common behavior exists. So why won't you let
this one go?
Let me give you my theory, shall I? You mentioned in your email
retracting the -1 on Noel that you had used parts of James in other
projects. How much do we want to be that you are using the handlers
with another service mechanism? One that requires a common subclass for
your handlers - like BaseConnectionHandler ? Could this be the unstated
motivation behind your religious devotion to BaseConnectionHandler.
Somehow I think so...
Why wouldn't you be explicit about this issue? Again, the reason is
obvious. You know that the list would reject the needs of your personal
software as a valid reason. And rightly so. So you make repeated
statements, none of which have any actual backing or coherent logic.
Like the one quoted above.
Personally, I didn't sign up to work for kodemuse.org. I find this
behavior an unethical abuse of committer privileges. I'll let the other
members of this list read the back and forth and decide whether they
agree with my assessment. But I'd bet $100 that if we ripped open the
Kodemuse code we'd find a non-James service class using
BaseConnectionHandler... Am I wrong?
--Peter
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
