In the past, what 8 years that I have been working on OFBiz, not once
have I had the masochistic urge to work on something which did not
already have some sort of design. Never will you fine me wishing to
refactor something without having the requirements already known. So,
you will never find me coming to the table empty handed, and that is
exactly what this sort of "request" is asking.
Nor, do I want to review and discuss with someone an idea until they
have their thoughts put together. So, what you can expect from me now,
in the past and in the future is exactly your first statement. "Here
is my design, what do you think..."
On May 1, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Adrian Crum 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?"
-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
