Inline...
Please don't revert the rest of the code. The point is that this needs time to mature, so it should stay in there but not become the default... not YET anyway.
I will leave the what was implemented alone for the time being.
Also, please don't be personally offended by this. Just because there are comments and feedback doesn't mean something has no merit, it just means that some adjustments to it might be able to improve it. That's what collaboration is all about, and I guess if you'd rather not do it than have other people comments on it and make changes to it then collaboration will be difficult.
I am not offended by any comments or feedback, I was only offended by your actions. Reverting the example was nothing more than a power move by you. You can argue this if you wish, but the fact is nothing else except for an example was effected, and there has been no discussion by anyone to revert anything yet. If you did feel that it was problematic, it should have been brought up if not to the community then at least to me personally.
Just to clear that up... are you saying you would rather not do any of this than make some changes and refinements to it based on feedback? I hope that's not the case. My intent with this, as I explained in my email, is to make a compromise and allow development and improvement on this to continue without impact on other parts of the project until it is more ready for that.
Your assumptions (as assumptions often are) completely wrong. Even though say now you hope this isn't the case, you have publicly accused me of this in your Notes On Security Changes document. What have I been doing for the past week? It surely wasn't moving ahead and checking in changes to all the applications to use a new authorization pattern. What I have been doing is acquiring additional needs/ requirements comparing them to what I have planned and trying to discuss with the community these changes. Refining the API and including the requirements which I have gathered.
You keep claiming that this new pattern is less flexible. While that may (but I don't agree) be true to a certain extent, is it also far MORE flexible when it comes to creating custom implementations for vertical, custom or customized applications.
Andrew
