I just reread this, and it sounds pretty harsh, so I apologize for
that. It's great that you are working on things and putting effort
into these improvements, however they turn out.
-David
On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:13 PM, David E Jones wrote:
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That branch is hopelessly out of date.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It is hopefully out of date only because of the changes you've made,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
