On 2/05/2009, at 1:55 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I don't really think that is relevant, permission services were an improvement to the existing security framework, designing a new framework doesn't invalidate an improvement to the old one.Of course it is relevant! Do we need to continue to design things that ultimately have to be redesigned? "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
I think there is a big difference between making an improvement to an existing framework and completely redesigning a framework. Your original comment implied that Andrew's previous work was flawed and I was trying to point out that there was nothing wrong with the last refactor, it was a perfectly valid improvement to what was in place before it.
What is the problem here? Are you that convinced that Andrew's implementation is perfect? That there's no room for improvement or other opinions?
In case your memory is shortening here's what I wrote previously in this thread:
Will it need improvement over time? of course it will but I think it's a much better base to work from.
Let me be clear, I have no problem here whatsoever, I'm just countering arguments that the community wasn't given an opportunity to be involved because it was and still does.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
