OSDir


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?


Thanks to everyone who took that time to review.

Although my preference was to contribute this utility back to commons, it seems like it has kind 
of spiraled into something much more, and there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus.

So if you think it was useful : 
https://github.com/palindromicity/stackwatch



On April 23, 2018 at 08:16:46, Gilles (gilles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 04:54:21 -0700, Otto Fowler wrote:
> Bump

More than a vote, you need someone to take on the tasks to
create the new component.

I feel that no argument were made against bringing ex-Sirona
back to "Commons" (or contributing your code to Romain's
Sirona fork), and I'm afraid that nothing else will be
added to that component (or: where is the plan?).

Best,
Gilles

> On April 9, 2018 at 08:53:13, Otto Fowler (ottobackwards@xxxxxxxxx)
> wrote:
>
> There has been no comment, do we need an explicit vote?
>
>
> On April 3, 2018 at 09:27:56, Otto Fowler (ottobackwards@xxxxxxxxx)
> wrote:
>
> So do we need a vote? What is next to move this forward?
>
>
> On March 28, 2018 at 14:51:55, Otto Fowler (ottobackwards@xxxxxxxxx)
> wrote:
>
> OK, sounds fine to me. Hopefully we’ll get some buy in and can move
> forward.
> I’m not sure what is next though ;)
>
>
>
> On March 28, 2018 at 13:17:22, Gary Gregory (garydgregory@xxxxxxxxx)
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Otto Fowler
> <ottobackwards@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> How about commons-timing, having StopWatch, StackWatch and other
>> classes
>> that
>> we can find?
>>
>
> I think we start small with only what we need and have today, namely
> these
> two classes.
>
> Gary
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On March 20, 2018 at 18:40:05, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> (rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx)
>> wrote:
>>
>> I would be happy to revive sirona @asf but dont think [monitoring]
>> as just
>> a few classes would bring enough value compare to a lambda not
>> worthing
> any
>> lib/dep in apps - just my opinion indeed.
>>
>> For circuit breaker: geronimo safeguard can be interested in hosting
>> that
>> utility part and drop failsafe dependency. Maybe something to
>> discuss in
>> another thread.
>>
>> Le 20 mars 2018 23:27, "Otto Fowler" <ottobackwards@xxxxxxxxx> a
>> écrit :
>>
>> > Sirona is gone, it is a closed incubator project. Romain has
>> forked it
> to
>> > his own repo.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On March 20, 2018 at 18:24:06, Gilles
>> (gilles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:00:41 -0700, Otto Fowler wrote:
>> > > If monitoring was started a new, and not re-viving the old
>> > > monitoring?
>> >
>> > Can the feature be contributed to "Sirona"? Otto, are you
>> > interested in this?
>> > Does it make sense to have "Commons Monitoring" revived based
>> > on part/all of "Sirona"?
>> > Romain, are you interested in this?
>> > What would be the scope/description of "Commons Monitoring"?
>> >
>> > Noting Romain's experience that the original "Commons" project
>> > evolved into "Sirona", it would be strange to start from scratch
>> > without a plan to not follow the same route again...
>> >
>> > Gilles
>> >
>> > > On March 20, 2018 at 17:56:44, Bruno P. Kinoshita (
>> > > brunodepaulak@xxxxxxxxxxxx.invalid) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I think StopWatch and CircuitBreakers could be moved together to
>> the
>> > > same
>> > > component. However, a circuit breaker can be time-related, or
>> not
>> > > (e.g. a
>> > > circuit breaker for memory size). So probably commons-timing
>> could be
>> > > a
>> > > good place for StopWatch, but maybe not for circuit-breaker. But
>> I
>> > > think
>> > > both could be under commons-monitoring perhaps?
>> > >
>> > > From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>; Commons
>> Developers
>> > > List <
>> > > dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 10:30 AM
>> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?
>> > >
>> > > I would love to get this on track. I apologize if I have made it
>> > > more
>> > > confusing than it needs to be,
>> > > I’m trying to be open to all the suggestions.
>> > >
>> > > If we assume that stack watch is worth ‘having’, then the
>> question is
>> > > where
>> > > to put it.
>> > > commons-monitoring / sirota seems to me to be a ‘complete’
>> solution
>> > > as
>> > > opposed to
>> > > a set of or collection of like classes.
>> > >
>> > > Setting the community support / project aspect of sirota aside,
>> it
>> > > seems
>> > > strange to put
>> > > a separate class into a more complete and uniform system. Unless
>> > > there is
>> > > some generically
>> > > useful set of timing utility classes that could be taken out of
>> > > sirota to
>> > > go into commons-????,
>> > > along with things identified ( StopWatch?) out of commons lang
>> and
>> > > possibly
>> > > other commons projects.
>> > >
>> > > commons-timing seems reasonable. Thoughts?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On March 17, 2018 at 11:24:32, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > > (rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx)
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Yes but consequence was a lack of community increase which is a
>> > > killer for
>> > > an incubator project on the long run.
>> > >
>> > > Le 17 mars 2018 15:19, "Gilles" <gilles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a
>> > > écrit :
>> > >
>> > >> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:47:40 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Le 17 mars 2018 11:49, "Gilles" <gilles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> a
>> > >>> écrit :
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:13:39 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 2018-03-15 14:36 GMT+01:00 Otto Fowler
>> <ottobackwards@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> If we can come to consensus on the way forward, I’ll be happy
>> to
>> > >>>> do the
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> work ( although I’ll need help of course ).
>> > >>>>> I guess I’m the straw that broke the camel’s back then? ;)
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> On March 15, 2018 at 08:09:45, Gilles
>> > >>>>> (gilles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>> > >>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Hi.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:52:58 -0700, Otto Fowler wrote:
>> > >>>>> > I think bringing back commons-monitoring/sirota would only
>> be
>> > >>>>> > possible if
>> > >>>>> > it were to be modular enough that you could bring in the
>> ‘core’
>> > >>>>> > classes
>> > >>>>> > without needing to bring in all of what sirota ended up
>> being,
>> > >>>>> which
>> > >>>>> > was an
>> > >>>>> > end to end solution.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Isn't it possible? [I didn't look; Romain should tell
>> whether he
>> > >>>>> would be interested in taking that route.]
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Sirona was done modular, just the API, the in memory part,
>> etc...
>> > >>>> But this kind of impl needs way more just after so not sure
>> it
>> > >>>> does
>> > > worth
>> > >>>> splitting it to put it back altogether after.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> What is the rational to try to push a very small part
>> @commons
>> > >>>> instead
>> > > of
>> > >>>> creating a community @incubator with an E2E solution? This is
>> what
>> > >>>> I
>> > > fail
>> > >>>> to see.
>> > >>>> My experience - coming exactly from here - tends to make me
>> think
>> > > commons
>> > >>>> will not fit very long or will not bring enough value pretty
>> > >>>> quickly
>> > > but
>> > >>>> that's just my opinion.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>> Not "just" an opinion since you evoke Sirona's precursor as
>> being
>> > >>> the kind of component we'd reinstate. Unless we learn
>> > >>> 1. why the precursor needed to become TLP, and
>> > >>> 2. why the TLP didn't succeed,
>> > >>> we'd go in circles.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> We failed at community@asf and pby communication/promotion
>> levels I
>> > >>> think.
>> > >>> Other parts were successful (prod etc).
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >> [It seems that part of your message went missing.]
>> > >>
>> > >> Lack of marketing skills should not entail failure, especially
>> > >> not since communication is a transverse concern.
>> > >>
>> > >> Gilles
>> > >>
>> > >> Would it make sense that Sirona becomes (again?) "Commons
>> > >> Monitoring"?
>> > >>> Does the "StackWatck" (Otto's contribution that started this
>> > >>> discussion)
>> > >>> already exist in a Sirona module? If not, can it be done, so
>> that
>> > >>> usage
>> > >>> is similar to what Otto had in mind?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Regards,
>> > >>> Gilles
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> commons-monitoring or commons-timing seem to be the correct
>> thing
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> > however,
>> > >>>>> > but I would like to think that there would be more impetus
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> I'm afraid that it's rather the lack of manpower.
>> > >>>>> [And my inner conviction is that that state of things often
>> > >>>>> led to rush to cramming more code into existing components,
>> > >>>>> rather than "distribute" more uniformly according to subject
>> > >>>>> matters. When scarce human resources ("community")
>> disappear,
>> > >>>>> cruft accumulates, sometimes up to stifle clean-up,
>> maintenance,
>> > >>>>> improvement, and even development.]
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> > to do this than
>> > >>>>> > thinking StackWatch is ‘too big’ for lang.time.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> It isn't any more than many other functionalities that were
>> > >>>>> introduced but shouldn't have been.
>> > >>>>> Depending on what the "Commons" PMC wants to favour ("code"
>> > >>>>> *or* "community"?), the choice is between continuing with
>> the
>> > >>>>> accumulation, or back-pedaling through the creation of as
>> > >>>>> many *real* components as they are developers willing to
>> > >>>>> maintain them.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> > It really isn’t that complicated a thing.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Sure.
>> > >>>>> The issue is somewhere else.
>> > >>>>> Note that, personally, I hadn't imagined that there would
>> > >>>>> be an issue for regular developers of [Lang] (or I wouldn't
>> > >>>>> have spent time reviewing the "details" ;-).
>> > >>>>> But I of course agree that the question should be asked; the
>> > >>>>> more so that, with [Math], we've a striking example of what
>> > >>>>> awaits a library that lacks boundary checks and explicit
>> > >>>>> road map.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Regards,
>> > >>>>> Gilles
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> > On March 8, 2018 at 11:50:17, Gilles
>> > >>>>> (gilles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>> > >>>>> > wrote:
>> > >>>>> >
>> > >>>>> > On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:03:24 +0000, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > >>>>> >> -1 to "commons-misc". It feels to me like a copout and
>> > >>>>> unfocused
>> > >>>>> >> like
>> > >>>>> >> SomethingUtils.
>> > >>>>> >> We need a proper home.
>> > >>>>> >
>> > >>>>> > +1
>> > >>>>> >
>> > >>>>> >> How about the idea of commons-measure.
>> > >>>>> >
>> > >>>>> > Just because the first feature would happen to be a timer?
>> > >>>>> > What other content do you foresee?
>> > >>>>> >
>> > >>>>> >> Then there
>> > >>>>> >> still the idea of resurrecting other Apache projects.
>> Kind of
>> > >>>>> going
>> > >>>>> >> in
>> > >>>>> >> circles...
>> > >>>>> >
>> > >>>>> > Indeed, IIRC the questions were asked (whether the feature
>> > >>>>> could
>> > >>>>> > be contributed to ex-Sirona and whether that project would
>> be
>> > >>>>> > repatriated to "Commons") but not answered (unless I'm
>> > >>>>> mistaken)...
>> > >>>>> >
>> > >>>>> > Best,
>> > >>>>> > Gilles
>> > >>>>> >
>> > >>>>> >
>> > >>>>> >> Gary
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> On Mar 8, 2018 08:58, "Otto Fowler"
>> <ottobackwards@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> So, could think about commons-misc or something?
>> > >>>>> >> I don’t think we are going to come up with a perfect
>> module
>> > >>>>> for
>> > >>>>> >> these
>> > >>>>> >> things.
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> Maybe the way it can work is:
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> commons-misc exists.
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> It is the landing place for things that seem to be
>> outside the
>> > > scope
>> > >>>>> >> of
>> > >>>>> >> commons-xxxx, but don’t justify
>> > >>>>> >> a new module or sandbox effort.
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> Things in misc can be reevaluated for inclusion in new
>> modules
>> > >>>>> at
>> > >>>>> >> things
>> > >>>>> >> go, and at that point @Depricated
>> > >>>>> >> out of misc.
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> ?
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> On March 3, 2018 at 00:42:12, Matt Sicker
>> (boards@xxxxxxxxx)
>> > >>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> On 2 March 2018 at 13:31, Oliver Heger
>> > >>>>> >> <oliver.heger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >>>>> >> wrote:
>> > >>>>> >>>
>> > >>>>> >>> One other suggestion: It was stated in the past that the
>> > > concurrent
>> > >>>>> >>> classes are also a bit out of scope for [lang],
>> especially
>> > >>>>> the
>> > >>>>> >>> circuit
>> > >>>>> >>> breaker implementations. Would it make sense to move
>> those
>> > >>>>> into a
>> > >>>>> >>> new
>> > >>>>> >>> module, and could this be a home for the watch classes,
>> too?
>> > >>>>> >>>
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> Considering the amount of retry libraries there are out
>> there,
>> > >>>>> I
>> > >>>>> >> think it
>> > >>>>> >> makes perfect sense for circuit breaker libraries to be
>> their
>> > >>>>> own
>> > >>>>> >> thing,
>> > >>>>> >> too. See Hysterix for example.
>> > >>>>> >>
>> > >>>>> >> --
>> > >>>>> >> Matt Sicker <boards@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using AMPGpg