|
Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] A new project proposal: TrieMap
Michael Vorburger <vorburger@...>
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Robert Varga <nite@...> wrote: On 20/09/17 14:10, Michael Vorburger wrote: I was looking at https://github.com/romix/java-concurrent-hash-trie-map/tree/master/src/main/java/com/romix/scala/collection/concurrent - looks like there's a lot more than was there now. nite@nitebug : ~/odl/yangtools/third-party/ and that is probably the real Q here - do we want to have such "small" projects.. I'll let others make that decision! - clearly define scope and stick to it, quickly converging on
|
|
|
|
Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] A new project proposal: TrieMap
Robert Varga
On 20/09/17 14:10, Michael Vorburger wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Robert Varga <nite@...nite@nitebug : ~/odl/yangtools/third-party/triemap on $ find . -name \*.java | wc -l 51 nite@nitebug : ~/odl/yangtools/third-party/triemap on $ find . -name \*.java | xargs wc -l | tail -n 1 4691 total e.g. 51 classes for 4.7KLOC, with some small room for growth in features (spliterators) and test coverage. I noticed that you have, apparently in vain, attempted to contribute toCompletely unresponsive for 18+ months. But so instead of a new top level ODL project how about just:Well, I really like to keep ODL coding standards and packaging, which means consuming odlparent -- which is not in maven central, making it not really convenient. (b) just integrate this either as a new package in an existing bundle orAs noted, this is already done, as the code currently lives in yangtools. This works, but is not ideal, as it forces unnecessary versioning churn. infrautils comes to mind - personally that's what I thinkNot "some sort", I have voiced my reservations very clearly multiple times. One key factor is no bounds on scope, which is very critical for long-term project health -- at some point a project needs to become code complete. There is no amount of code I can contribute to fix that. Aside from that, the codebase in question is about 40% the size of infrautils and it has *way* better quality: infrautils: https://sonar.opendaylight.org/overview?id=66717 triemap: https://sonar.opendaylight.org/overview?id=org.opendaylight.yangtools%3Atriemap Just my 2 cents. If others feel strongly in favour of starting to haveAside from '5 classes'. I personally have no problem with that -- as long as you can: - clearly define scope and stick to it, quickly converging on feature-completeness - provide strictly semver'd releases - sit outside of autorelease Regards, Robert
|
|
|
|
Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] A new project proposal: TrieMap
Michael Vorburger <vorburger@...>
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Robert Varga <nite@...> wrote: Hello everyone, an entire formal new ODL project for these... 5 classes strikes me as .. curious. I noticed that you have, apparently in vain, attempted to contribute to upstream https://github.com/romix/java-concurrent-hash-trie-map ... in an ideal world, that guy, whoever he is, should just make you a committer on that repo, but I'm guessing from seeing PRs here https://github.com/romix/java-concurrent-hash-trie-map/pulls ignore that's not going to happen? ;-) But so instead of a new top level ODL project how about just: (a) just keep this on your personal GitHub, release to Maven central, and depend on it in yangtools? This code is for a very general data structure, and has nothing at all to do with ODL SDN as such. (b) just integrate this either as a new package in an existing bundle or as a new bundle into an existing ODL project instead of creating yet another one? infrautils comes to mind - personally that's what I think it's for (general infra structure "lower than" yangtools). I do understand you have some sort of reservations about infrautils, but you are a commmitter on it, so you are more than welcome to contribute whatever you think is needed in infrautils to make it suitable for consumption e.g. by yangtools. Just my 2 cents. If others feel strongly in favour of starting to have many "micro" projects at the top-level in ODL, then I have no strong objections against that either. But then we could start doing that for many other bunch of 5 classes as well... Regards,
|
|
|
|
Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Start the creation review for GNT
xingjun chu
Thanks An.
To GNT team, I just quickly read through the GNT proposal. A few comments . If the project only provides an unified view of the topology and track the changes of the topology across different vendor devices, it is going to be very complementary to FaaS since FaaS is more focus on the abstraction of the topology and provides logical network services over the abstracted topology. But In the scope, it also states “At present, the logical network of this project is based on the implementation of neutron, features can also be extended if ODL users have other logical network models. “, Sounds GNT also provides services on top of the topo and wondering what services it provides, if it provides Neutron like L2/L3 services as the quote above implies, then that seems overlaps with FaaS goal in some degree. Thanks “
From: An Ho
+Adding FAAS Mailing List
It would be great to see some cross project discussion and collaboration in this area, especially if there may exist some potential overlap.
Best Regards, An Ho
From:
tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Sam Hague
Was there any discussions on how GNT compares to FaaS [1]? They seem similar in scope and seems like we had a similar discussion about scope overlap when FaaS was proposed.
Also would GNT use the TTP project or something similar?
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:25 PM,
段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:
Hi, everyone
What is the result of your vote for the proposal and what's the next step?
Thanks, Kaiyuan
|
|
|
|
Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Start the creation review for GNT
an.ho@huawei.com
+Adding FAAS Mailing List
It would be great to see some cross project discussion and collaboration in this area, especially if there may exist some potential overlap.
Best Regards, An Ho
From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Sam Hague
Was there any discussions on how GNT compares to FaaS [1]? They seem similar in scope and seems like we had a similar discussion about scope overlap when FaaS was proposed.
Also would GNT use the TTP project or something similar?
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:25 PM,
段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:
Hi, everyone
What is the result of your vote for the proposal and what's the next step?
Thanks, Kaiyuan
|
|
|
|
Re: Start the creation review for GNT
Sam Hague
Was there any discussions on how GNT compares to FaaS [1]? They seem similar in scope and seems like we had a similar discussion about scope overlap when FaaS was proposed. Also would GNT use the TTP project or something similar?
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:25 PM, 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
A new project proposal: TrieMap
Robert Varga
Hello everyone,
I would like to propose a new project, TrieMap, as detailed in https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Triemap. This would be an Oxygen-timeframe spin-off from YANG Tools, which is currently hosting the codebase due to it being the topmost project requiring the implementation. There are three reasons for splitting the code from YANG Tools: - the code is outside of scope of YANG Tools - the code does not have any dependencies on other code in YANG Tools - the code is almost feature-complete at this stage and very stable, hence would benefit from independent versioning Please review the proposal, any feedback is welcome. Regards, Robert
|
|
|
|
Re: Start the creation review for GNT
Kaiyuan Duan
Hi, everyone What is the result of your vote for the proposal and what's the next step? Thanks, Kaiyuan
----邮件原文----
|
|
|
|
Re: Start the creation review for GNT
Colin Dixon
Here is the proposal: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:General_Network_Topology Previous discussion can be found here: I'll plan to close discussion here on September 13th, so that we can try to vote by the September 14th TSC meeting and record the result there. Please ask any more questions you have. Thanks, --Colin
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:20 PM, 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Start the creation review for GNT
Kaiyuan Duan
I think we are ready, let's start the creation review for GNT through email. Please feel free to ask any questions！And I have already cc all committers. Kaiyuan
|
|
|
|
Re: 答复: Re:答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
Colin Dixon
I'll just send an e-mail to the TSC mailing list opening the creation review, and we'll let people ask questions and you can answer them. If the coversation has mostly died down in a week, I'll ask for a vote. --Colin
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:44 PM, 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: 答复: Re:答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
Kaiyuan Duan
Hi, Colin Really? We really prefer to do the review in the next two weeks rather than waiting for the 4th Thursday. What's the process of the creation review through email? Kaiyuan
----邮件原文----
|
|
|
|
Re: 答复: Re:答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
Colin Dixon
OK. We can also do it over e-mail if you'd like to try to get it done sooner than next month. --Colin
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:37 AM, 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: 答复: Re:答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
Kaiyuan Duan
Hi, everyone
Kaiyuan
----邮件原文----
|
|
|
|
Re: 答复: Re:答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
Anil Vishnoi
Ideally it should be done once TSC officially approves the project after creation review.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:45 AM, 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:
--
Thanks Anil
|
|
|
|
Re: 答复: Re:答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
Kaiyuan Duan
Got it, one more question: Should we submit the code for IPR review before the creation review?
----邮件原文----
|
|
|
|
Re: 答复: Re:答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
huan.linying@...
TSC meeting schedule is here: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSC:Main#Meeting_Schedule_and_Logistics. Normally TSC meeting starts at 1:00AM UTC+8 and APAC meeting starts at 11:30 AM UTC+8. 原始邮件 发件人： <duankaiyuan@...>; 收件人：宦林英10042773; 抄送人： <vishnoianil@...>; <An.Ho@...>; <tsc@...>; <project-proposals@...>; 日 期 ：2017年08月23日 10:53 主 题 ：Re:答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [Project-proposals] Project proposal of GNT Thanks for clearing this up! However, is there a list of the timezone for each meeting? We hope to choose one in Sep. ----邮件原文---- 发件人： <duankaiyuan@...>; 收件人： <vishnoianil@gmail..com>; <An.Ho@...>; 抄送人： <tsc@...>; <project-proposals@...>; 日 期 ：2017年08月23日 09:09 主 题 ：Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [Project-proposals] Project proposal of GNT Hi， I am a little bit confused about the schedule, An said the meeting this month is 8/23(PST), why we can do the creation review at 8/31? Kaiyuan ----邮件原文----
|
|
|
|
Re: 答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
Kaiyuan Duan
Thanks for clearing this up! However, is there a list of the timezone for each meeting? We hope to choose one in Sep.
----邮件原文----
|
|
|
|
Re: 答复: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
huan.linying@...
Hi Kaiyuan, The creation review could be done in a TSC weekly meeting, which is held in every Thursday. And every forth Thurday meeting in a month will in APAC timezone. 08/23 is the next APAC meeting but a ceation review should be two weeks later after proposal was submitted. So you can choose a later meeting. Thanks. 原始邮件 发件人： <duankaiyuan@...>; 收件人： <vishnoianil@...>; <An.Ho@...>; 抄送人： <tsc@...>; <project-proposals@...>; 日 期 ：2017年08月23日 09:09 主 题 ：Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [Project-proposals] Project proposal of GNT Hi， I am a little bit confused about the schedule, An said the meeting this month is 8/23(PST), why we can do the creation review at 8/31? Kaiyuan
----邮件原文----
|
|
|
|
Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Project proposal of GNT
Abhijit Kumbhare
Anil is including the 2 week review period for people to go over your proposal which would be over by August 31 meeting. On the other hand the TSC meeting of August 23 is in a timezone favorable to Asia Pacific. However the proposal will not be eligible for review on August 23 as the 2 week review period will not be over.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:13 PM 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:
|
|
|