It's not the same! There is a big difference between "Here's my design, what do
you think?" and "I'm interested in refactoring the security framework. Could
you help me with the design?"
-Adrian
--- On Fri, 5/1/09, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> 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, 7:49 PM
> 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:
>
> >
> > How about we start over and collaborate on a design?
> Is that so much
> > different?
> >
> > -Adrian
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 5/1/09, Scott Gray
> <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
