As I see it with interaction in any community a person who wishes to
interact has two choices:
1. speak in a way that is open to response and focused on the topics
at hand
2. speak in general terms instead of about details and use personal
attacks to shut down the discussion
-David
On Sep 4, 2006, at 12:05 AM, Chris Howe wrote:
Replies inline
--- David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What are you talking about? I don't see how this
could be true at
all. Just because a field is on an entity doesn't
mean it can't be
null, even if it is a foreign key. When all fields
in an fk are null
the foreign key constraint is ignored.
I really am not interested in rehashing a discussion
that you're going to ignore and walk away from without
considering my approach or pointing out how it is
inferior to the current approach. I'm also not
interested in a discussion that you're going to brush
off and point me to links that actually support my
assertions. I don't see the discussion as a waste of
time, so I am willing to have it if you're willing to
stick around for it.
I may not be understanding what you're trying to
express or what sort
of limitation you're seeing, but if this were coming
from a different
source it's the type of thing I'd label and file
away as a baseless
FUD attack on the project... ;)
How is pointing out a flaw, and then volunteering to
take the time to correct it constitute fear,
uncertainty or doubt? I eat the dog food, so I'm just
as interested in it tasting good as you are from the
POV of selling it. Please don't label me as a
ditractor for suggesting things could be a little
better and also supplying step by step explainations
on how to accomplish the improvements.
Yes, please do submit it, but please also respect
the feedback that
this will most likely never replace the current
party relationship
stuff, especially not if the various objections to
it are not
addressed where it would not sufficiently replace
existing
functionality.
The way to submit such patches is as a new feature,
not a replacement
for an extremely commonly used, understood, and
accepted feature.
-David
That couldn't be code mongering talk there, could it?
David, you've already mentioned how to approach it.
And I'm taking your advice because you've personally
taught me on several occasions not to waste time
touching the code base on things that take time to
write. Because if they took time to write then they
probably take too much time to review and solicit
feedback.
I apologize for the negative tone of this post. It's
just frustrating to have discussions that sound like
the community is behind modularization of components
and making it simple to customize and reuse great
logic patterns so that it can be implemented in the
unique fashion that is your (general audience)
company, but then hold on to so tightly the things
that are preventing that from happening.
