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). -David
