Re: Authz API Discussion (was re: svn commit: r770084)

[Scott Gray]

It's exactly the same in fact, we have a design proposed by somebody let's start discussing it. Tear pieces out, replace some, improve others, whatever at least we have a starting point.

Regards
Scott

On 2/05/2009, at 2:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

-Adrian


--- On Fri, 5/1/09, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:

How about we start over and collaborate on a design? Is that so much different?

From: Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com>
Subject: Re: Authz API Discussion (was re: svn commit: r770084)
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 7:30 PM
This discussion is going no where fast, how about we back
track to Andrew's last email and start actually
discussing the design.  Nothing is being foisted on anybody.

Regards
Scott

On 2/05/2009, at 2:19 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

--- On Fri, 5/1/09, Anil Patel

<anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:

This is one of the big reasons what I love and

hate

community driven software. I don't see how

what Andrew

did is bad. Even though it was personal

communication but I

know Andrew only started after Adrian and Jacques

showed

interest by commenting on the page.

The only interest I showed was that I agreed that

OFBiz security could use improvement, and I suggested he use
a third party library. I did not endorse or approve of his
design.

Andrew has been actively explaining his idea all

this time.

As I demonstrated in another reply, no he did not.

Only a few days went by between introducing the idea and
committing code.

The work done till date is not blocking anybody,

old

security system is still in place. New system is

implemented

in example component so its lot easy for him to

explain and

people to understand.

What if the new work is a bad design? How will we know

that until everyone has had time to evaluate it?

People have different ways of working in

community, Joe is

committer still all the time he creates Jira issue

and

uploads his patch and most of time its somebody

else who

does commits, but that's his way of working.

If we

don't do what Joe does then why should Andrew

do what

Adrian does.

As far as I know, Joe submits patches for things he

doesn't have commit rights to.

I don't see any reason why we should start

over.

Do you see a reason why we shouldn't? Will the

project suffer immensely if we pause and wait for others to
comment? Is there some catastrophe looming that requires us
to rush this through?

All
the time we talk about making things easy so

people will

contribute, Why do you want to resist a seasoned

contributer

for working. I'll rather have expect community

will

support. All the time he has been asking people to

tell him

suggestions, wish list etc. Why not support him

and get more

out of him instead.

If we can't invite the community to participate -

as I suggested - then that only proves what I suspect - that
this is a design that is being foisted on the community.

-Adrian

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature