Ruth Hoffman wrote: > Hi David: > Not being as technically versed as most list members, I've got a > question that may seem obvious to you, but I was hoping you could clarify:
Your question is to me, not David. > > David E Jones wrote: >> 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 >>>> > In what context does this statement make sense: "That rollbacks have no > chance at all of working?". Design or implementation? I'm confused > because, don't rollbacks work now? Or maybe, didn't they work at some > point? Or, is this a very specific situation that is implied by this post? Rollback services can't work correctly. dispatcher.addRollbackService(), specifically. >>>> 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 >> >> >>
