I've been reading this thread with some interest to see where it's going.
Right now, it appears that the discussion is being dragged down a series
of familiar self-inflicted rat holes.
What would be most helpful to getting something productive, Tom, and
others from HQ, is to offer, at a minimum, a rough design spec and/or
set of sys req, to set the stage.
If this is purely a conceptual exercise, then someone from HQ needs to
lead the discussion, starting with a set of business requirements, and
fleshing
things out from there - AND not letting the discussion tail off into the
weeds.
Many of the people on this list are programmers first, designers second,
if at all.
They can give you elegant and clever solutions, but those solutions have no
meaning without a framework to hang them on.
Otherwise you will get the "wounded duck, spiraling into the pond" exercise
from what was a good starting point.
...Paul
Bryan Murdock wrote:
On 6/7/06, Tom Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, so that would have to be a requirement of this software as well.
Opt-out of being listed.
Opt-out of having what listed for whom? We are still a long way off
of even answering those questions.
Others have given great responses to these premature security
concerns, so I'll just say, amen, to them and leave it at that.
Bryan
_______________________________________________
Ldsoss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
_______________________________________________
Ldsoss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
