negrinv wrote:
there is a third way Doug, and it's for me to stop trying to be polite by
answering all the questions that I am being asked, then nobody will get
upset by my replies. If the decision is for no encryption at field level, I
accept it, but I don't believe it should be externalised. Perhaps someone
else will pick up your offer.
V.
Victor,
nobody is upset here (I hope you're not either :-) ). I think all Doug
wanted to tell you is that you are quite tenacious about your point of
putting encryption into the core of Lucene. The fact that you got a lot
of responses to your mail shows, that the developers are not neglecting
this topic but are rather trying to find a solution better suitable for
all Lucene users.
This is just how open source works. You can make suggestions, but you
have to listen to the community consisting of developers and users and
what they think about it. In the Lucene developer team are a lot of very
bright people and in almost all cases patches/new features benefit at
the end from interesting discussions and different opinions.
So if you accept how open source works and if you're up for making
changes to your patch so that the community will like it, everybody will
benefit: you, because you learn from experienced people, your patch
because it gets a better quality and the users, because they get some
kind of encryption support in Lucene.
Regards,
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
