On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > On 17/04/2010, at 8:34 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> Scott Gray wrote: >>> Your style of communication leaves a lot to be desired. >> >> And your point it? Have you realized how poorly implemented this >> class is? That all registered services are always async. That >> rollbacks have no chance at all of working? Such critical bugs not >> being discovered in such low-level code make me very very worried. > > My point is that if you want people to respond to your messages then you > should focus on the problem and possible solutions instead of using terms > like "very very stupid" and "very poorly implemented designs". I don't know > about anyone else but when you communicate in this manner I personally have > interest in collaborating with you.
There is also a significant disconnect in Adam's email that fails to distinguish between designs and implementations. Most of the email talks about issues with the design, the whole implementation stuff is just thrown in there without details. I won't even get into the distinction between requirements and designs, but actually my guess is that is where Adam's frustration really is, his requirements are different than the ones this design was meant to meet, but failing to recognize that issue it just looks like a bad design and/or a bad implementation. This leaves the reader wondering... what is the issue here? What is it you're trying to do that you can't? What is the proposed solution or change? -David
