Actually, I think that discussion of an authentication service will be a
vital discussion. The current code is not expected to live any longer than
it takes to have that discussion, and replace it.
But although I am not convinced that Peter's solution isn't the right one
for the extreme short term, I don't recall seeing a -1 vote. Where did I
miss it?
For that matter, I don't recall seeing anyone vote on the release plan. But
the idea appears to be that James 2.1 gets frozen within the next week or
so, released in a month, and then your new AuthService starts getting
significant effort. So no one is abandoning the idea.
--- Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 15:02
To: James Developers List
Subject: RE: [PATCH] NNTP Server fixes
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]>
