<div dir="ltr">Work item type and work item are generic enough to represent and understand. As someone mentioned earlier, planner item would imply that the object only relates to the planning phase.<div> </div><div>Labels and flexibility sound good, would just want to make sure that we create a better end user experience than Google and not create the usability mistakes that Google has made with all that flexibility : )</div><div> </div><div>-Monica</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:00 PM, <<a href="mailto:almighty-public-request@redhat.com" target="_blank">almighty-public-request@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send almighty-public mailing list submissions to <a href="mailto:almighty-public@redhat.com">almighty-public@redhat.com</a> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public</a> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to <a href="mailto:almighty-public-request@redhat.com">almighty-public-request@redhat.com</a> You can reach the person managing the list at <a href="mailto:almighty-public-owner@redhat.com">almighty-public-owner@redhat.com</a> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of almighty-public digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Equaler considered harmful (Andrew Lee Rubinger) 2. Terminology: work item -> planner item (Baiju Muthukadan) 3. Re: Terminology: work item -> planner item (Andrew Lee Rubinger) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:35:34 -0400 From: Andrew Lee Rubinger <<a href="mailto:alr@redhat.com">alr@redhat.com</a>> To: Konrad Kleine <<a href="mailto:kkleine@redhat.com">kkleine@redhat.com</a>> Cc: ALMighty-public <<a href="mailto:almighty-public@redhat.com">almighty-public@redhat.com</a>>, Thomas M?der <<a href="mailto:tmader@redhat.com">tmader@redhat.com</a>> Subject: Re: [almighty] Equaler considered harmful Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:CABm567H_tRQYbeOhdEn_oS3G95Dfw8r1YhBo2ydDBQdenXSHTw@mail.gmail.com">CABm567H_tRQYbeOhdEn_oS3G95Dfw8r1YhBo2ydDBQdenXSHTw@mail.gmail.com</a>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Also, a bit curious: Equality { Equals(left interface{}, right interface{}) bool } What does the implementation of this look like? Its usage? Because now to achieve your point 4) we've moved the responsibility of determining equality from the object in question to some external equality-checker. How does the equality-checker know about the various types it has to support? S, ALR On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Andrew Lee Rubinger <<a href="mailto:alr@redhat.com">alr@redhat.com</a>> wrote: > Java may have made an odd design design by putting "boolean > equals(Object)" in the root Object class as a mechanism to test equality by > value, but there's also: > > <a href="https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Comparable.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Comparable.html</a> > > This approach handles not just equals but also greater/less than > comparisons for types that have ordered values. You could retrofit it to > return an enum type instead of an int for better clarity. > > Something to consider :) > > S, > ALR > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Konrad Kleine <<a href="mailto:kkleine@redhat.com">kkleine@redhat.com</a>> > wrote: > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> thanks for not pointing in my direction :) >> >> I can't wait to see a PR for this. >> >> Regards, >> Konrad >> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Thomas M?der <<a href="mailto:tmader@redhat.com">tmader@redhat.com</a>> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> some time back, we have introduced the "Equaler" interface. I believe >>> we're going down the wrong path with this: Java got this wrong initially >>> and we still suffer the consequences. Equaler looks like this: >>> >>> type Equaler interface { >>> Equal(Equaler) bool >>> } >>> >>> There are a couple of drawbacks to this approach: >>> >>> 1. There can only be a single implementation of Equals for all time. >>> But this too restrictive: for example, I might want to include the version >>> field in a struct in the comparison for some cases, in other cases I simply >>> don't care. Generally, there can be many equivalence relationships for a >>> given set of objects. For all we know, we might consider two objects equal >>> if they have the same color. >>> 2. You can't compose equality with this implementation >>> In Java, this has given rise to classes like "EqualsBuilder" that >>> allowed to do exactly that. >>> 3. We can't implement equality based on interfaces >>> We'd have to reimplement equality for every struct (which is the >>> first parameter). >>> 4. You always have to check for null before calling Equals() >>> >>> So I propose to rewrite the interface to : >>> >>> Equality { >>> >>> Equals(left interface{}, right interface{}) bool >>> >>> } >>> >>> I think it would make sense that I prepare a PR to illustrate my >>> approach porting the current implementations in the "models" packe. A POC >>> shouldn't take too long. >>> >>> thoughts? >>> >>> /Thomas >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> almighty-public mailing list >>> <a href="mailto:almighty-public@redhat.com">almighty-public@redhat.com</a> >>> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public</a> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> almighty-public mailing list >> <a href="mailto:almighty-public@redhat.com">almighty-public@redhat.com</a> >> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public</a> >> >> > > > -- > Red Hat Developer Programs Architecture > @ALRubinger > -- Red Hat Developer Programs Architecture @ALRubinger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <<a href="https://www.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20160922/b5cadb77/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20160922/b5cadb77/attachment.html</a>> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:27:18 +0530 From: Baiju Muthukadan <<a href="mailto:bmuthuka@redhat.com">bmuthuka@redhat.com</a>> To: ALMighty-public <<a href="mailto:almighty-public@redhat.com">almighty-public@redhat.com</a>> Subject: [almighty] Terminology: work item -> planner item Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:CAJi4GASx7kzHDXi0w9sHf3Uw6qZwgiYXWqbD8WG62Ai-mXLV6w@mail.gmail.com">CAJi4GASx7kzHDXi0w9sHf3Uw6qZwgiYXWqbD8WG62Ai-mXLV6w@mail.gmail.com</a>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi All, Can we change what we are calling today as work item to planner item ? Regards, Baiju M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <<a href="https://www.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20160922/a802b1dd/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20160922/a802b1dd/attachment.html</a>> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:59:51 -0400 From: Andrew Lee Rubinger <<a href="mailto:alr@redhat.com">alr@redhat.com</a>> To: Baiju Muthukadan <<a href="mailto:bmuthuka@redhat.com">bmuthuka@redhat.com</a>> Cc: ALMighty-public <<a href="mailto:almighty-public@redhat.com">almighty-public@redhat.com</a>> Subject: Re: [almighty] Terminology: work item -> planner item Message-ID: <CABm567HsNp1rWznzxV5j9jDbDa=JKNwh8mtwqFYzFJ=<a href="mailto:so9oUjw@mail.gmail.com">so9oUjw@mail.gmail.com</a>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Baiju Muthukadan <<a href="mailto:bmuthuka@redhat.com">bmuthuka@redhat.com</a>> wrote: > Hi All, > > Can we change what we are calling today as work item to planner item ? > Nope. :) Work Items are more generic; they may represent entities not part of the Planner, but instead in Build, Code, etc services. S, ALR > > Regards, > Baiju M > > _______________________________________________ > almighty-public mailing list > <a href="mailto:almighty-public@redhat.com">almighty-public@redhat.com</a> > <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public</a> > > -- Red Hat Developer Programs Architecture @ALRubinger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <<a href="https://www.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20160922/8152585a/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20160922/8152585a/attachment.html</a>> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ almighty-public mailing list <a href="mailto:almighty-public@redhat.com">almighty-public@redhat.com</a> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public</a> End of almighty-public Digest, Vol 5, Issue 35 ********************************************** </blockquote></div> </div>