What is your list of requirements Adrian??
On May 1, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. In the end we will have a much
better implementation - one that will address everyone's issues and
incorporate everyone's solutions.
It will be more productive because we will work out problems on the
drawing board, not in deployment bugs.
-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, 8:06 PM
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:
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
