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

[Scott Gray]

So what are you suggesting, scrap the design and start from scratch? I don't see how that would be more productive than working from a proposal which is exactly what the design can be treated as.

Regards
Scott

On 2/05/2009, at 2:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

-Adrian

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

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?"

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

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature