qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan Conway" <acon...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an annotation can be referenced by name
Date Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:26:43 GMT


> On Oct. 28, 2015, 1:41 p.m., Alan Conway wrote:
> > Sorry if I'm being thick, but can't *all* annotations be referenced by name? Do
we need the extra marker, i.e. is there a difference between a "referential" and a "non-referenetial"
annotation? Its been a while since I was in this code so maybe there's something I've forgotten.
> 
> Ernie Allen wrote:
>     We only need the extra marker for the console. It needs an indication of which annotations
should be separated in the UI.
> 
> Alan Conway wrote:
>     Is there a reason not to separate all annotations? That would save us the extra tag
and attendant bikeshed controversy over what to call it. On the other hand, if there is a
reason then Ship It.
>     
>     "referential" does have the advantage that I immediately realize I don't know what
it means, instead of thinking I know what it means and only figuring out much later that I
don't.
> 
> Ernie Allen wrote:
>     "Is there a reason not to separate all annotations?"
>     The other annotations (as of now) are connectionRole and addrPort. 
>     - connectionRole only has a single attribute so it seems wrong to separate it out,
give it a name, and then refer to it by name.
>     - addrPort could be separated if more than one section in the config file needed
to refer to the same addr/port. But I don't think that is the case now.
>     If we were to list all the annotations that applied to an entity, I'd still need
to know which ones should be treated separatly in the UI.
>     
>     Instead of "referential" I could use "this-annotation-should-be-separated-and-referred-to-by-name-in-the-UI".
*Apologies if that comment comes accross as snide. It was intended as tongue-in-cheek.* 
>     Actually, reading that fake name gave me an idea: How about 'ui-separate'? 
>     
>     Or I could just hard-code that the listener and connector entities use the sslProfile
annotation. That would avoid any changes to the schema.

Ship it. There's nothing more unsightly than someone with their tounge outside their cheeks.


- Alan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104287
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted
Ross.
> 
> 
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation
could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out
the sslProfile attributes.
> 
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName>
attribute.
> 
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name.
Another possibility is 'referable'.
> 
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only
emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb 
>   python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> bin/test.sh
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ernie Allen
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message