Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

The issues addressed are:  -

  • Upgrade to ModeShape patch release (backup/restore capabilities compatible

...

  • with newer version).

...

...

  • Concurrent client creating same resource

 

 — Release should be out at the end of next week.

Kevin Ford: not tested yet the concurrency issue. Hope to do it today. Limited test with 4.7 revealed no issues. 

Andrew discusses the background of the issue: Modeshape 4 Infinispan into a non-Infinispan Modeshape created the issue. Modeshape applied patch to 5.2. and that patch has been back ported now, so that’s we have in 4.6.1. 4.7.0 is using the version of Modeshape that’s in between, so that’s the reason for an issue. The solution suggested (by Kevin) is to continue with the releases (assuming no issues): follow up 4.7.0 with 4.7.1. 

- Aaron’s contentcomment: all commits will be fine with 4.7.1. release; other than bugs fixed, nothing much has changed.

- Andrew’s suggestion: (1) please test things suggestions:

  • Please test stuff if interested in either.

...

  •  
  • Add test pages to wiki.

...

  • 4.6.1 sanity test for Hydra and Islandora needed. (Esme has volunteered).

 

Spec Issues

Adam Soroka (ajs6f) clarifies the background: “Trying to do a stable draft .. to present the community” with options (not finalize anything).

 

Issues at stake:

 

  • Create-on-put: no negative response yet(only discussion with ben)
  • Atomic operations: currently transactions have a URI. This is “better in some ways,

...

  • not so in other ways.” ajs6f and Aaron Coburn inclined towards using headers.

Other than that, "most of the issues have been resolved." 

 

ajs6f suggests different ways for the interested parties to submit feedback. Also stresses on the importance of finding out where the code base diverges from the spec.

 

Andrew’s comment/point # 1: Resources within a transaction are different resources than those outside. (That’s represented

...

by a different URL.)

...

 

ajs6f: But there’s more to that. (a) sometimes they are the same resources; (b) the resource is the same, but

...

the state is different (after mutation, etc.).

...

 

Andrew’s point # 2: Easy to following links for transactions with URIs, easy to remove the URI… With

...

headers, “the browser interaction would be more complex.”

 

 ajs6fajs6f: Removing a segment from a URI is no more restful than adding a header is. We can add canonical links. If you remove the headers, you are at the resource.. so it’s very “natural” —  otherwise you

...

have to follow a series of links, “the semantics of which might not be obvious”. There are tradeoffs on either side.

...

(Andrew in agreement about the tradeoffs).

Aaron

 

 aaron: Using a browser so that if someone clicks refresh it doesn’t lose that. Make the interaction work so that it’s pretty obvious that you are in a transaction or if you are in outside the transaction.

 

ajs6f: Perhaps a visual indication could be done to indicate transaction. A toggle perhaps.

 

Ben Armintor: Nothing should be changed until design documentation is done

...

!

 

ajs6f: The specification will link to a document that describes how the codebase is different and why.

...

 

ajs6f: In conclusion, no one spoke up in favor of URI approach; there’s some interest in headers.

 

Andrew appreciates Adam’s effort.

  

IMPORTImport/EXPORT Export Sprint

...

...

  • Nick: 3rd sprint, starting Monday. Short on volunteers (Tasks: (a) coding and (b) testing/documentation).

...

  • Esme and Jared (and Danny Bernstein) are available.

...

  • Bethany and Joshua are working on a Python tool to do verification

...

  • Contact Bethany if interested in working on details.

...

  • Looking for more volunteers.

 

Discovery Requirements

- (barmintor inaudible) 

- awoods (providing a summary): The issue was raised at HydraConnect higher; folks are still talking about it.

- Discovery is not the right word here, do you have the word barmintor?

- Ben: No one word yet . . .

- Esme: “. . “not . not sure if there’s a good term to encapsulate that..”

- awoods: as As the requirements do solidify, it would help to have them have mentioned in this call.

- ajs6f (side comment): Not sure if we are all (mikeAtUVa, e.g.) talking about the same thing.   

 

- awoods: Yes, different from synchronous field search.

...

Tickets


Please review tickets if you are the assignee.