Understood.
I remember sitting next to you at the developer's conference, and watching you
work. I experienced firsthand your "masochistic urge to work on something which
did not already have some sort of design." I asked you for help, and you gave
me links that pointed me right to the answer. I really appreciated that. I
admire you and I respect you. Please understand that.
Before I got involved with OFBiz I worked as an independent programmer - I
didn't have to answer to anyone. I could do my own thing. Like you, I had the
"masochistic urge to work on something which did not already have some sort of
design." I didn't consult with anyone - I just came up with a design and wrote
the code for it.
Working with the OFBiz community has taught me the value of community. It has
changed my ways. I started off with suggesting my "superior designs" (that I
emailed to David, and I am embarrassed to read today) and they were critiqued,
in a stern yet polite way. Yet I accepted those critiques. In the years that
followed, David and I would disagree about many things, but I never ignored his
advice or his opinions - I would always consider them carefully.
So that's all I'm suggesting now. Please understand that you are respected for
who you are - one of the founders of the project. Please understand that you
are respected for your talent. But also, please understand that we are a
community.
I want to help with this effort. There is nothing that would satisfy me more
than all of us working together on the refactoring of OFBiz security. All I ask
is that we back off for a little while and let the community offer their
comments, suggestions, and recommendations - even if it means discarding
"superior designs." Together, we can take those comments, suggestions, and
recommendations, and use them to redesign OFBiz security in a way that will
meet the needs of the community and impress the world at large.
-Adrian
--- On Fri, 5/1/09, Andrew Zeneski <andrew.zene...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> From: Andrew Zeneski <andrew.zene...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> Subject: Re: Authz API Discussion (was re: svn commit: r770084)
> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 9:00 PM
> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
