--- On Thu, 9/16/10, David E Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
> > On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >> From: "Adrian Crum" <[email protected]>
> >>> This description of events isn't entirely
> true.
> >>>
> >>> David didn't reject Andrew's design, the
> community in general felt
> >>> excluded from the design process. David simply
> asked that we discuss
> >>> the design before code was committed.
> >>
> >> Yes exactly, thanks for clarifying Adrian, I knew
> I had left some points
> >> behind
> >>
> >>> The security redesign was the outcome of that
> discussion. As far as I
> >>> know, David and I agreed on the final design,
> but interest in it fell
> >>> off. I ended up being the only person working
> on it. Since then, David
> >>> has included the security redesign in his new
> project.
> >>
> >> I tought there were some stumbling blocks, notably
> when merging your works.
> >
> > We only disagreed on the workflow. David wanted to
> commit all the changes at once and I wanted to commit them a
> little at a time.
>
> I guess you found a way to get me to comment on these
> things... just claim to speak for me and then do so
> incorrectly.
>
> There were other disagreements, but I guess they were not
> sufficient to be memorable.
>
> BTW, the ExecutionContext stuff was a more significant
> refactoring and cleanup intended to facilitate multi-tenant
> features as well as make the runtime context sensitive
> security possible. On the cleanup side it would eliminate
> the need for the various ThreadLocal variables that exist in
> the framework, and would help keep all of the junk out of
> the context and parameters Maps (try logging a context now
> to see what I mean).
I wasn't speaking for you, I was recalling the events as I remember them.
I agree we had other disagreements at the time, but they weren't related to the
security redesign (from my perspective) so I didn't mention them. The
motivation in my reply was to correct some misrepresentations that were made,
hopefully without stirring up even more controversy.
Based on Jacques comments, and comments I've received from others in personal
conversations, I believe the reason interest in the security redesign dropped
off was because of all of the drama surrounding the development of it. Even
now, when new interest is being expressed in the security redesign, more drama
is being thrown into it. That's unfortunate - because the project suffers as a
result.
The drama comes from you assigning feelings and motivations to me that aren't
there. The truth is, I'm not trying to attack you or goad you.
In other words, get over yourself. You aren't some prize target that I'm trying
to take down.
To the rest of the community I ask that you to please restrict the conversation
of the security redesign to the design itself. Maybe then we can see some
progress.
-Adrian
