On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Rob, > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hi Rajith, > > > > > > > Since this is a major area, could you please share your design ideas > on > > > the > > > list? > > > Like create a JIRA and post a wiki page. > > > This can start a disscussion where everybody else can > comment/contribute > > > in > > > terms of ideas or code. > > > This will ensure that the community feels part of the process and the > > > community share collective responsibility. > > > > > > > > Not actually sure this is a *major* area :-) It is simply a new > > implementation of the matching algorithms. > > > Well code wise this maybe a small area, but performance wise the matching > algorithm does play a critical role. > > > > Are you familiar with DFAs? > > > Very well. > > > > > There isn't really to much more to it than as I described above: it > builds > > a > > DFA machine as you add bindings. > > > Sorry to have picked on this. But we need to lead by example. > Even if things are dirt simple, perhaps it is important to explain to the > community why u think it is a good idea. Whether u have explored other > ideas > etc.. > This sort of thing will engage the community and people might have ideas > on > how to improve it or perhpas better ideas. > More than anything it helps keep the transparency and improves community > participation. > > > > I've not finished it yet, but when I have > > something ready for people to review I'll post it up. > > > > Ok, my goal is to eunsure more transparency of, > a) what we are planning to do > b) why we are doing it? ex bug fix, feature, improvement etc.. (JIRA is > best > to capture this) > c) how we are planning to do it > d) and what sort of time frame (Ex M3...) > > > > > > > > > I would hold off on the DTX stuff until M4. We need to > significantly > > > > refactor the Java Broker (another thing I am doing in the background > > and > > > > will look to commit after we have M3 out of the way) and also put in > > > place > > > > flow-to-disk. > > > > > > > > Rather than doing this only in the background, I think you should throw > > the > > > ideas on the list. > > > We as a community need to give enough time for people to understand, > > > review > > > and comment. > > > You could continue building your prototype in the background, but the > > qpid > > > community should provide more visibility on the design process etc.. > > > Also I would appreciate if everybody get a chance to discuss/review > the > > > idea/design and code before you actually make a commit. > > > > > > > > This is something we discussed at the F2F where you were present. All I > > am > > doing is trying to see how easy it is to move the broker to the > > architecture > > we described there. I believe Rafi took away the pieces of paper with > > that > > written on :-) > > > > Lets put this on the wiki. This will help engaging the comunity. > We didn't have only a few folks attending the F2F. > This will also give the community ideas about the direction we are > talking. > > > > I'm not going to commit on trunk - don't worry... Since we settled on > the > > design in our F2F I think the major thing to do is to have a chat about > it > > when I have a proposal ready... > > > Rob it is not abouting u commiting on the trunk or not. I wouldn't mind u > commiting this on the trunk provided we have adequate discussions. > We need to build a community. And we need to capture these > discussions/ideas > in the wiki/JIRA or where ever if we want other folks involved. > People should get more context as to why we are doing something and where > we > are heading. > > > > > > -- Rob > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Rajith Attapattu > Red Hat > blog: http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ > +1 to what Rajith is saying, involving the community early on in design review and discussion is an important part of the consensus building process. ...ant
