David, Thanks! Just let me get this security redesign finished, then I'll start working on the cross-dependency stuff. Your work has not been lost - just delayed a little bit.
-Adrian --- On Fri, 8/21/09, David E Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > From: David E Jones <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 9:35 PM > > 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 That branch is hopelessly out of date.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 It is hopefully out of date only because of the 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> From: David E Jones <[email protected]> > >>> Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> 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 > <[email protected]> > >>> 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 > >> > > > >
