----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter M. Goldstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Harmeet, > > > > It was resolved, as it always is, in a matter of hours > > > of being reported. Not days. Or months. > > > > Agreed, but you broke it, I reported it and you fixed it. I could have > > > fixed it too. > > Just like you could've fixed the broken AuthService anytime in the last > nine months. But you didn't. And thus it doesn't count. You see, > saying you're going to do something doesn't cut any mustard when you've > got no follow through. > > This is in fact just like AuthService. You claimed to be able to write > a service that would replace it. You never submitted it for > consideration. It doesn't exist. You never bothered to make it exist. > It's much easier to not do the work and play the victim.
Alright Peter here is the attached service. I basically decided to let you do your thing and that was not due to laziness, but just did not want the conflict. > > Test code for test code's sake is useless. It's only when it's part of > a comprehensive notion of testing - and when those test cases are > clearly labeled - that the testing is at all worthwhile. See any of > Noel's emails regarding test code. It would be good to have some contributions from you in this area since you have such strong views on this. As far as I know the testing ideas are in line what has been talked off and I have been commuicating with everyone interested in this topic to make it better. > > > > > ii) A superfluous class (CRLFWriter.java) that didn't even address a > > > > documented issue in the NNTP code. This issue means that the > > > CRLFWriter code was wrong. > > > > This is no longer there. As soon as I saw something eqivalent I > > removed it. This was yesterday or a couple of days back. > > Exactly. So it wasn't a useful contribution. Of course you didn't > bother to actually read the code base to investigate this... No it wasn't. I had read the code before but did not remember. What is your point ?. I added a class, realized it was redundant and then removed it. So is that an offence in Apache ? > > > > > > > > iii) An incorrect scheduler that exhibited almost exactly the same > > > behavior as the current Scheduler > > > > > > iv) Another Scheduler implementation that no one but you seems to > > > think we need, and that you haven't put the time in to build and > > > test with Noel. > > > > Sceduler implementation has already been verified. You made a number > > of fixes too in watchdog. > > Noel seems to disagree with this statement. He states that there is at > least one open bug in your scheduler implementation. The only thing I know of is optimization issues not correctness ones. Did not want to optimize as I was not sure it would be production code. > Moreover, as far > as I can tell from the posts, you've never sent him a .sar for testing. I usu. zip the the James dist and put it up. Sent Noel and cc'd list a few times. > So we have no idea, save for your word (which you also gave for the > Timer implementation of the scheduler, as I recall), that the thing > works properly under load. It may. It may not. Noel's test confirmed that it stays up under load. > > > A regression indeed. And fixed. In an hour. Not nine months. > > > > After I posted the exact snippet that exhibitted the problem. Would > > have been nicer if you would have once tested it yourself or > > discovered the snippet rather than adding code and breaking the > > server. > > > And it would've been nice if you hadn't implemented an architecturally > unsound AuthService. We all make mistakes. true. > The difference is that I > fix my own. You do not. You are fixing things that I wrote 9 months back and after I have sent the exact problem and place where it is broken. > > So to sum up, in the entirety of 2002 you haven't contributed a single > useful line of code or documentation. Yet you wish to block those > who've been working diligently on the project for months. It all comes > back to ethics... > > > > > As the NNTP code stood today morning at least, it was much worse than > > anytime in last 9 months. Auth was broken for 9 months but in the last > > > few days everything was broken. I am trying to test and fix. > > In a word, this is a lie. > > There are zero (that's none) outstanding bugs against the current code > base. All the issues you reported have been addressed - quickly and > efficiently. What's your issue? > > Name your issue and I'll look at it. But the server works - and was > tested a great deal more than it ever was before. It sometimes takes a lot longer to find the issues and narrowed to 5 lines of code than fix the issue. > > Just the sheer unmitigated gall of this response is amazing. We have > here a committer who abandoned the product for nine months, with a slew > of open critical bugs against his nominally owned component. This happens. I did make significant contributions then got busy in other things. You cannot have a person contribute in open source and fault him for not contributing at the same pace or being around. Rest of the email doesn't merit a response, but I do wish you could cool down. Harmeet
AuthState.java
Description: Binary data
AuthServiceImpl.java
Description: Binary data
AuthService.java
Description: Binary data
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
