Using that logic, you could say that almost any previous bugs were really "as-implemented" features and no changes should ever be made to the current release branch. If it was found somewhere in ofbiz that sensitive information was submitted over http instead of https, would that be considered a bug? Or would it be discounted as "well, it's a bad choice but that's how it was implemented"?
I understand that the difficult thing about this is that the bug/feature line has to be drawn somewhere. (I know where I'd draw it, especially on security related issues.) I'm curious to see how things pan out on this. It will tell me how seriously security is taken by the people driving ofbiz. Mike Ray Barlow wrote: > As you say plenty of good points so rather than repeat lengthy arguments > for or against I'll keep it simple and just say I don't think it should > be described as a bug as it was implemented this way. Bad choice maybe > but it's a feature change. > > Having said that I do think it should be seriously considered for the > release branch because of it's small footprint and improvement on a very > weak and insecure area. > > Ray > > > Dan Shields wrote: >> Thanks Jacques. Is there any further action by me that might be >> advised? I was wondering because I was considering declaring a >> referendum on the issue on the user list as per David Jones' >> suggestion. >> >> Wow I guess that what we have here is "the absence of this new feature >> is a bug". >> >> I must say, the dev-debate that it has inspired has been impressive! >> There are good arguments both for viewing the patch as a bug, as well >> as equally good arguments for viewing it as a feature. It really >> surprised me because up until that point in time (when I blindly >> stumbled into this) my view was entirely to think about it as a bug >> only. The author of OFBIZ-1106 never knew the difference between >> 'code that failed to hide the password' and 'the complete absence of >> code that successfully hid the password', he just knew that the >> software did not do 'as it should', and this was exactly my point of >> view in devising a solution as well. It requires a strong >> metaphysical argument to even tell the difference between the points >> of fact that might exist in the software that would reveal the actual >> intent of the original design. My feeling is that it was either >> overlooked accidentally, or it was not convenient to declare the XUI >> XPage in a manner that made sense to have both regular input and >> password input in the same node of the tree but at different times >> (this convenience is what I provided in the patch). >> >> As I said above I am willing to take this to the user list and invite >> all users who run a release4.0 branch to submit an accept/reject vote, >> as I think this feature/bug (or bug/feature) is important enough to >> the success of release4.0 to warrant. >> >> I am happily sitting on the fence and content to let this issue go >> either way. I am finding it fascinating. >> >> Cheers all >> Dan >> >>
