David, What problems did I run into? The only thing I don't like is the cross-dependency problem (or as you call it, circular-dependency). I would love to see that issue solved in the manner you have envisioned. I am 100% in agreement with your goals. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Like you said, you've got more important things to do.
In the meantime, I would really like to get the security redesign finished. How can I do that when I can't get the branch to compile? The branch I created - like yours - is a work in progress. But it compiles. How else can I test my changes? You're being disingenuous when you say I gave up trying to understand and use the work that you did, throwing it away. Haven't you been paying attention? Spend a little time reading my replies (especially my last one) and you'll see that isn't true. -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, 9:13 PM > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > > > 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. > > Yes, it won't compile... but what does that have to do with > anything? It's not _supposed_ to be able to compile right > now as its a work in progress toward a specific goal for > specific reasons as I wrote up before. > > > That branch is hopelessly out of date.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. > > It is hopefully out of date only because of the changes > you've made, as I've been pointing out. > > > 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. > > I did reply. I reviewed your work and replied with comments > on the direction and problems you would likely run into... > which you did run into. However, that didn't seem to help > adjust the direction of things, so... > > > 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 don't see what the problem is here... and that is the > problem. You gave on trying to understand and use the work > that I did, throwing it away, and at the same time are > running into problems that I already solved there... so... > what to be done? > > > You're right - you've been away for a while. In the > meantime, the project marches forward. I'm sorry if that > frustrates you. > > Nope, not at all. Please go right on ahead, it is not my > intent to stop you, but rather to hopefully smooth things > out and help. I can't keep an eye everything. As I said > before, if no one else cares about these issues, why should > I? And so the answer is, I guess I don't. I'm going to work > on other things. > > -David > > > > > --- 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 > > > >
