David, I've tried to make things clear. I don't know how to make it any clearer. I'll try to go over it again...
Yes, I reviewed your branch. I tried to use it, but I can't - because it won't compile. As proof that I spent time with it, look at the commit log - I fixed the build.xml file and added a missing folder. That branch is hopelessly out of date. We can't expect the community to stop development in the trunk just because it might interfere with the branch. I suggested starting a new branch and bringing your changes into it a little at a time - always making sure that it will build and run. You didn't reply. You replied to another message asking me to create a new branch so that you can review the work I've done. I created that branch. Since then, I have used that branch to build out the ExecutionContext and security redesign - based on the work you did in the branch you created. In your branch you created a GenericDelegator interface. I extracted the GenericDelegator interface in the trunk. You objected and asked me to revert it. In your branch you created an EntityListIterator interface. I'm suggesting we do the same thing in the trunk. Again, you're objecting to it. I honestly don't see what the problem is here. I'm doing exactly what you did, only I'm doing it a small step at a time instead of trying to rewrite the whole framework in one pass. That's how I work: make a change, test, make another change, test... I've given up trying to use your branch - not because you have no say anymore = but because your branch is unusable. The branch I created builds and runs, it has a working implementation of the ExecutionContext, it has a nearly completed security-aware artifact implementation, and it is synchronized with the trunk. I used your branch as a guide - the work I've done is compatible with it. You're right - you've been away for a while. In the meantime, the project marches forward. I'm sorry if that frustrates you. -Adrian --- On Fri, 8/21/09, David E Jones <d...@me.com> wrote: > From: David E Jones <d...@me.com> > Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 7:51 PM > > I hope you understand that this is yet another change that > conflicts with what I put in the branch... > > Again, is it your intention to ignore that work and move in > a different direction making it difficult (or impossible > without re-changing various things) to get that finished and > merged back in? > > I suppose I've been out a lot for the last couple of weeks > and so I haven't been able to finish this, so perhaps I have > no say any more... except what I've said before that you > REALLY need to think through to the end goal before trying > to make interim steps that may turn out to not be helpful at > all... and if no one else cares... why should I? > > -David > > > On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > > > Actually, I just converted EntityListIterator to an > interface and everything works fine. It ended up being a > trivial change. > > > > I'll wait for any objections before committing it. > > > > -Adrian > > > > Adrian Crum wrote: > >> One problem I just ran into while implementing the > security redesign: > >> EntityListIterator implements ListIterator, but > code throughout the project references EntityListIterator (a > concrete class) instead of ListIterator (an interface). > >> I would like to refactor that so that the > interface is used instead of the concrete class. What do you > think? > >> -Adrian > >> Adrian Crum wrote: > >>> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Adrian Crum <adri...@hlmksw.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Let's say we're working on the entity > component. Just > >>>> extract interfaces from the commonly used > classes, move them > >>>> to framework/api, update import > statements, compile, test, > >>>> commit. It seems pretty straightforward to > me. > >>> > >>> Crow tastes nasty. > >>> > >>> After trying to implement my example, I can > see the problems. Wow, that is ugly. One thing is certain, > we're very good at painting ourselves into corners. > >>> > >>> -Adrian > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
