RFC Playground

[Alberto Aguirre]

Once we release mir 0.13 we can tell our colleagues to use mir_demo_server
instead.

>From what I can see, features missing from the demo server in comparison to
proving server are mostly cosmetic. If they are not, can Daniel list the
features that are missing?



On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Daniel van Vugt <
daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com> wrote:

> Last I checked mir_proving_server was more functional and less buggy than
> our other example servers. That and our colleagues tend to use it as their
> primary development platform when testing toolkit/app ports. So
> mir_proving_server is important and should be reworked to use any newer
> APIs you would prefer it to use.
>
> I know it's frustrating the number of regressions we've had this past week
> or so. But to blame the functionality that regressed more than the person
> who regressed it I think is disproportionate.
>
> Yeah that "god" function is annoying. It needs to be teased apart. I can
> help with that but it's not a major priority right now.
>
> Please try to avoid belittling the project by using words like
> "playground" and "dark corner". It's important and useful example code that
> myself and others use every day to do our jobs. So if you want it
> modernised, let's do it.
>
>
>
> On 31/03/15 21:12, Alan Griffiths wrote:
>
>> There's a bunch of code in the mir project that isn't needed for
>> supporting the public interfaces (neither by implementing them, testing
>> them nor demonstrating their use). This code lies in "playground" and
>> shares that location with the following README:
>>
>>     The Playground
>>
>>     These are mir demos that excercise private in-flux mir functionality.
>>     As such functionality matures, related headers become public and the
>>     playground
>>     code may become an example of how to use such feature.
>>
>> It has now been some time since any functionality has "matured" from
>> playground and become public (either as APIs or examples). I don't see
>> any evidence that the code there is being developed toward such an event
>> in the foreseeable future.
>>
>> The requirement to support this code is becoming a burden as it makes
>> use of internal APIs in a way that limits the evolution of Mir
>> internals. Updating the code is also costly as it has grown in an
>> uncontrolled manner (most of the logic seems to be in one 223 line "god"
>> function). Because it not under test to the same extent as Mir
>> production code we've had a number of breakages to this code land on
>> trunk recently (often to features I wasn't previously aware of).
>>
>> So the questions:
>>
>> 1. Does "playground" still provide a proving ground for new code to
>> germinate? Or is it dark corner for legacy code to go and die?
>> 2. Do we still need a proving ground like this? Or do our public APIs
>> now support enough functionality to drive feature development?
>> 3. If we still need a proving ground is it desirable to rework this code
>> to be better aligned with the rest of the project?
>> 4. If we don't need "playground" is there anything we need to provide
>> before dropping it from the project.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Mircosmonauts mailing list
> Mircosmonauts at lists.canonical.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.canonical.com/
> mailman/listinfo/mircosmonauts
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/mir-devel/attachments/20150401/d3aa4371/attachment.html>