Please don't attack me Adrian, I didn't attack you. This is entertaining though, isn't it? I especially like how in your message full of attacks message you ask for no more of the same. I reread my message below and I don't see any personal attack to you. So, where is this "drama" coming from? Am I missing something here? You can misrepresent things all day, but only the less careful readers will ever believe you.
I'm pretty sure I've asked this before, but could you please stop using my name to try to add legitimacy to your ideas? Just leave me out of it. It's that simple. If it's a good idea, present it and it will stand on its own. The quality of an idea has nothing to do with the person who expresses it or the people who agree with it. BTW, I don't think it's only you by any means. In general collaboration seems to have mostly broken down in the project. There are lots of people still committing to the same code repository, but not many instances any more of people discussing things and planning together, or at least soliciting feedback, and then having multiple people work together to implement based on the plans. The project in general is still doing fine and it is growing and things are getting fixed, but collaboration isn't here any more. Any why is this? Is it because of the people involved? Is it because of the way the community is organized? Is it because the whole concept of running this type of project (no central control, no agreed on spec to implement to) was flawed from the beginning? Is it something else entirely? I don't know... -David On Sep 17, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > --- 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 > > > >
