David Heinemeier Hansson
2006-Feb-26 23:40 UTC
ActionWebService targeted for unbundling by 1.1
The creator of ActionWebService, Leon Breedt, seems to be on a
long-term vacation from Rails work and no one else in the core group
is working with this framework. So its not a good fit to be in core
when none of core is deeply familiar with it. On top of that, it''s not
one of those things that "most people need most of the time", so
that''s another strike.
With those charges, we want to unbundle AWS from the core distribution
of Rails. That sounds dramatic, but it''s really just a 1 line change
in the Rakefile of railties:
- s.add_dependency(''actionwebservice'', ''=
1.0.0'' + PKG_BUILD)
...and if you actually used AWS, it would be easy as pie to keep
installing it with:
gem install actionwebservice
So this is a very likely thing to happen for 1.1. If you have any
concerns as to why it shouldn''t go down like that, please voice your
opinion. If you want to take the lead on maintaining AWS, please speak
up too (that won''t stop our intentions to unbundle, though).
--
David Heinemeier Hansson
http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management
http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager
http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework
David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:> The creator of ActionWebService, Leon Breedt, seems to be on a > long-term vacation from Rails workIs he alive? Does anyone know if he''s OK?> and no one else in the core group > is working with this framework. So its not a good fit to be in core > when none of core is deeply familiar with it.I agree that for something to be in core it must be maintainable by known maintainers. I assume Leon fell into that category, without (I guess) being in the core team. > On top of that, it''s not> one of those things that "most people need most of the time", so > that''s another strike.Do you know the figures here? Without daring to tread on the ground of "is Rails enterprise-ready?" I would point out that being able to offer functionality either through a Web UI or via a web service is a big enterprise "tick in the box".> With those charges, we want to unbundle AWS from the core distribution > of Rails. That sounds dramatic, but it''s really just a 1 line change > in the Rakefile of railties: > > - s.add_dependency(''actionwebservice'', ''= 1.0.0'' + PKG_BUILD) > > ...and if you actually used AWS, it would be easy as pie to keep > installing it with: > > gem install actionwebservice > > So this is a very likely thing to happen for 1.1. If you have any > concerns as to why it shouldn''t go down like that, please voice your > opinion. If you want to take the lead on maintaining AWS, please speak > up too (that won''t stop our intentions to unbundle, though).Personally, I believe that anything up to Rails 2.0 should respect the commitment to "not break the Book (AWDR)". At the very least, there should be a succession of versions that warn the user before something actually breaks. Perhaps you should go through the book and publish the "truck number"[1] of each feature. regards Justin [1] Truck Number - the number of people who would need to be run over by a truck to render a given feature unviable.
Michael Koziarski
2006-Feb-27 03:24 UTC
Re: ActionWebService targeted for unbundling by 1.1
> Is he alive? Does anyone know if he''s OK?Leon''s fine. He''s just overworked at the dayjob.> I agree that for something to be in core it must be maintainable by > known maintainers. I assume Leon fell into that category, without (I > guess) being in the core team.Leon was in the core team, it''s just that he hasn''t had time to contribute in the meantime.> Do you know the figures here? Without daring to tread on the ground of > "is Rails enterprise-ready?" I would point out that being able to offer > functionality either through a Web UI or via a web service is a big > enterprise "tick in the box".Well ActionPack''s REST support is pretty complete at present. But if someone''s able to start fixing the show stoppers like these, then we can definitely continue to include it: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/2553 http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3567 etc.> Personally, I believe that anything up to Rails 2.0 should respect the > commitment to "not break the Book (AWDR)". At the very least, there > should be a succession of versions that warn the user before something > actually breaks. > > Perhaps you should go through the book and publish the "truck number"[1] > of each feature.It''s not really a question of ''truck numbers'' (nice phrase though), but rather that AWS is broken now, and noone has stepped up to the plate to take over maintenance. I''d definitely prefer to continue to include AWS in rails, at least until rails 2.0, but in it''s current state, it''s just too broken. If you''re using AWS in production at present, please consider looking into the tickets and providing fixes. That''s the best way to ensure that AWS stays in rails.> regards > > Justin > > [1] Truck Number - the number of people who would need to be run over by > a truck to render a given feature unviable. > _______________________________________________ > Rails-core mailing list > Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core >-- Cheers Koz
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 05:40:51PM -0600, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:> The creator of ActionWebService, Leon Breedt, seems to be on a > long-term vacation from Rails work and no one else in the core group > is working with this framework. So its not a good fit to be in core > when none of core is deeply familiar with it. On top of that, it''s not > one of those things that "most people need most of the time", so > that''s another strike. > > With those charges, we want to unbundle AWS from the core distribution > of Rails. That sounds dramatic, but it''s really just a 1 line change > in the Rakefile of railties: > > - s.add_dependency(''actionwebservice'', ''= 1.0.0'' + PKG_BUILD) > > ...and if you actually used AWS, it would be easy as pie to keep > installing it with: > > gem install actionwebservice > > So this is a very likely thing to happen for 1.1. If you have any > concerns as to why it shouldn''t go down like that, please voice your > opinion. If you want to take the lead on maintaining AWS, please speak > up too (that won''t stop our intentions to unbundle, though). > -- > David Heinemeier Hansson > http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain > http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management > http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager > http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework > _______________________________________________ > Rails-core mailing list > Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-coreWe''d be happy to take on ActionWebServices, as we use it daily in much of our business process. I had run into the issues in 1.8.4 but decided the benefits of AWS made 1.8.2 adequate for now. We were unaware there was a maintainer vacancy. The ''we'' i''m referring to are myself, trey dempsey, and kevin berry (deathsyn). -- TJ Vanderpoel GCIA,GCIH tj@rapidreporting.com _______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
Michael Koziarski
2006-Feb-27 03:27 UTC
Re: ActionWebService targeted for unbundling by 1.1
> We''d be happy to take on ActionWebServices, as we use it daily in > much of our business process. I had run into the issues in 1.8.4 > but decided the benefits of AWS made 1.8.2 adequate for now. We > were unaware there was a maintainer vacancy. The ''we'' i''m referring > to are myself, trey dempsey, and kevin berry (deathsyn).Awesome, if you have a look at http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/1 you can see a few critical bugs which need fixing. If you can attach patches and let us know, we''ll get them applied. -- Cheers Koz
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:27:59PM +1300, Michael Koziarski wrote:> > We''d be happy to take on ActionWebServices, as we use it daily in > > much of our business process. I had run into the issues in 1.8.4 > > but decided the benefits of AWS made 1.8.2 adequate for now. We > > were unaware there was a maintainer vacancy. The ''we'' i''m referring > > to are myself, trey dempsey, and kevin berry (deathsyn). > > Awesome, if you have a look at http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/1 > you can see a few critical bugs which need fixing. If you can attach > patches and let us know, we''ll get them applied. > > > -- > Cheers > > Koz > _______________________________________________ > Rails-core mailing list > Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-coreWe''re on it -- TJ Vanderpoel GCIA,GCIH tj@rapidreporting.com _______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
TJ Vanderpoel wrote:> We''re on itNot that we''re voting, but I''d really like to see AWS remain a core part of Rails. We''re also about to roll out some significant production use. I haven''t been the dev on that part of our app, but I know we''ve got a local patch applied to make it work for us. I''ll be happy to help clear up the remaining issues, at the very least by testing any patches you 3 are able to provide.
Michael Koziarski wrote:>> Is he alive? Does anyone know if he''s OK? > > Leon''s fine. He''s just overworked at the dayjob.It would be good if he could still advise others on (i) where to look in the code when diagnosing a problem, and (ii) the level of testing required when submitting a patch + tests.>> Do you know the figures here? Without daring to tread on the ground of >> "is Rails enterprise-ready?" I would point out that being able to offer >> functionality either through a Web UI or via a web service is a big >> enterprise "tick in the box". > > Well ActionPack''s REST support is pretty complete at present.That''s good. Document/literal SOAP (as opposed to SOAP RPC) would be another thing to have on the todo list.> But if > someone''s able to start fixing the show stoppers like these, then we > can definitely continue to include it: > > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/2553 > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3567 > > etc. > > >> Personally, I believe that anything up to Rails 2.0 should respect the >> commitment to "not break the Book (AWDR)". At the very least, there >> should be a succession of versions that warn the user before something >> actually breaks. >> >> Perhaps you should go through the book and publish the "truck number"[1] >> of each feature. > > It''s not really a question of ''truck numbers'' (nice phrase though), > but rather that AWS is broken now, and noone has stepped up to the > plate to take over maintenance. I''d definitely prefer to continue to > include AWS in rails, at least until rails 2.0, but in it''s current > state, it''s just too broken.Thanks - that puts the problem in a very different light from DHH''s post. Has there been any previous call for an AWS maintainer on this list?> If you''re using AWS in production at present, please consider looking > into the tickets and providing fixes. That''s the best way to ensure > that AWS stays in rails.We are only using Rails for prototyping at present, and not using AWS...> >> regards >> >> Justin >> >> [1] Truck Number - the number of people who would need to be run over by >> a truck to render a given feature unviable. > > -- > Cheers > > Kozthanks again Justin
I''ve just sent an aggregated patch for AWS to DHH that fixes these two tickets and many more. I hope he''ll have some time to look at it. If anybody wants to look at it, I can send it to the list. Kent. On 2/26/06, Michael Koziarski <michael@koziarski.com> wrote:> > Is he alive? Does anyone know if he''s OK? > > Leon''s fine. He''s just overworked at the dayjob. > > > I agree that for something to be in core it must be maintainable by > > known maintainers. I assume Leon fell into that category, without (I > > guess) being in the core team. > > Leon was in the core team, it''s just that he hasn''t had time to > contribute in the meantime. > > > Do you know the figures here? Without daring to tread on the ground of > > "is Rails enterprise-ready?" I would point out that being able to offer > > functionality either through a Web UI or via a web service is a big > > enterprise "tick in the box". > > Well ActionPack''s REST support is pretty complete at present. But if > someone''s able to start fixing the show stoppers like these, then we > can definitely continue to include it: > > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/2553 > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3567 > > etc. > > > > Personally, I believe that anything up to Rails 2.0 should respect the > > commitment to "not break the Book (AWDR)". At the very least, there > > should be a succession of versions that warn the user before something > > actually breaks. > > > > Perhaps you should go through the book and publish the "truck number"[1] > > of each feature. > > It''s not really a question of ''truck numbers'' (nice phrase though), > but rather that AWS is broken now, and noone has stepped up to the > plate to take over maintenance. I''d definitely prefer to continue to > include AWS in rails, at least until rails 2.0, but in it''s current > state, it''s just too broken. > > If you''re using AWS in production at present, please consider looking > into the tickets and providing fixes. That''s the best way to ensure > that AWS stays in rails. > > > regards > > > > Justin > > > > [1] Truck Number - the number of people who would need to be run over by > > a truck to render a given feature unviable. > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails-core mailing list > > Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Koz > _______________________________________________ > Rails-core mailing list > Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core >-- Kent --- http://www.datanoise.com
Kent Sibilev wrote:> I''ve just sent an aggregated patch for AWS to DHH that fixes these two > tickets and many more. I hope he''ll have some time to look at it. > > If anybody wants to look at it, I can send it to the list. > > Kent.Kent, Yes, please send it to the list also. I''d like to see it. Regards, Blair -- Blair Zajac, Ph.D. <blair@orcaware.com> Subversion training, consulting and support http://www.orcaware.com/svn/
The attached patch fixes 2553, 3421, 2078, 2390, 2633, 2769, 3055, 3576, 3321 tickets and all test cases. Cheers, Kent On 2/27/06, Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> wrote:> Kent Sibilev wrote: > > I''ve just sent an aggregated patch for AWS to DHH that fixes these two > > tickets and many more. I hope he''ll have some time to look at it. > > > > If anybody wants to look at it, I can send it to the list. > > > > Kent. > > Kent, > > Yes, please send it to the list also. I''d like to see it. > > Regards, > Blair > > -- > Blair Zajac, Ph.D. > <blair@orcaware.com> > Subversion training, consulting and support > http://www.orcaware.com/svn/ > _______________________________________________ > Rails-core mailing list > Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core >-- Kent --- http://www.datanoise.com _______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
> The attached patch fixes 2553, 3421, 2078, 2390, 2633, 2769, 3055, > 3576, 3321 tickets and all test cases. > Cheers, > KentBeautiful catch in ruby_to_soap, we had been mucking around in obj2soap to no avail. We''ll be testing this on all our AWS applications over the next 24 hours and report back. -- TJ Vanderpoel GCIA,GCIH tj@rapidreporting.com _______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
Thank you. Please report if you have any problems. I''m still working on ticket 3567 and I noticed that web_client_api doesn''t work when method returns ActiveRecord object. I''m trying to fix these two issues. Kent. On 2/28/06, TJ Vanderpoel <bougyman@bougyman.com> wrote:> Beautiful catch in ruby_to_soap, we had been mucking around in obj2soap to > no avail. We''ll be testing this on all our AWS applications over the next > 24 hours and report back.
Kent Sibilev wrote:> The attached patch fixes 2553, 3421, 2078, 2390, 2633, 2769, 3055, > 3576, 3321 tickets and all test cases.Thanks for this -- we''ve applied locally and will be testing. So far it looks good.
Here is an updated diff that fixes web_client_api for the :soap protocol and fixes 3567. Kent. On 2/28/06, Michael Schoen <schoenm@earthlink.net> wrote:> Kent Sibilev wrote: > > The attached patch fixes 2553, 3421, 2078, 2390, 2633, 2769, 3055, > > 3576, 3321 tickets and all test cases. > > Thanks for this -- we''ve applied locally and will be testing. So far it > looks good. > > _______________________________________________ > Rails-core mailing list > Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core >-- Kent --- http://www.datanoise.com _______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core