AuthService etc. discussion is moot. It has already been checked in, inspite of a offer of discussion and -1 on that change.
Seems like a waste of time for now to discuss this anymore. Harmeet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Oct 2, 1:13 PM > > That is why I am agreeing with you to replace it. > > OK, point of agreement. You both think that the authentication mechanism is > fundamentally flawed at the architecture level, and should be replaced. :-) > > > It may not be the best mechanism, but AuthServiceFactory fixes the problem > > you found and it is better than coupling auth stuff inside handler. > > I believe that Peter feels that what he's done is a quick hack to make it > work, and since both of you agree that the whole thing should be ripped out, > tossed, and replaced as soon as 2.1 is closed he'd rather go with something > that he's been testing rather than start again right now with an > AuthServiceFactory that he expects would ALSO be ripped, tossed and > replaced. > > If I am reading both of you correctly, then his point of view makes some > sense. Rather than invest the time in AuthServiceFactory now, with the > intent of replacing it anyway, why not go out the door with his code (if it > works), and then start the discussion about proper design? > > > I'll make sure AuthService issue is corrected before release. The change > > delta will be smaller with AuthServiceFactory from current codebase. > > My personal view is that we're getting down to the short straws on the 2.1 > release, and I'm getting very antsy about changes. You get a vote, I don't, > but there have been several bugs introduced recently that came from innocent > little fixes and code refactoring. Bugs happen. The only way to guarantee > that you don't introduce a new one is not to change code. So unless we have > a bug to fix, I'd just as soon not change code. Peter still has connection > handling changes that he wants to check in, which makes me very nervous at > this late date. > > > We have so far talked about what should not be. Let us talk about what > > should be the right way. ideas... > > The sense that I get from Peter's messages is that he wants to focus on > getting 2.1 out, and not lose his focus by getting into tangential > discussion on future architecture. This is similar to why Danny wants to > put off discussion about the Mailet API until later, and why I'd like him to > put off discussing the store interface, too. Because we all want to be able > to participate and discuss those, but right now we're trying to focus on the > current codebase. > > --- Noel > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
