Re: latest checkin...

["Peter M. Goldstein" <pe...@yahoo.com>]

 

Harmeet,

 

> 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.

 

Again, it's like you are illiterate.

 

This AuthService does the following:

 

i) Publicly exposes an interface to other Phoenix components

 

ii) That interface fails to use long standardized (since Java 1.1) APIs
for authentication and authorization.  You've commented about how you
"just can't understand how the Avalon folks wouldn't use Doug Lea's
code, since it's best of breed" (paraphrase).  Yet you fails to use the
long established (longer than Doug Lea's code and more widely used) Java
Authentication and Authorization Service.  Sure seems hypocritical to
me.

 

iii) This moves the authentication requirement outside of the server
configuration.  That is wrong.  A service needs to be able to control
whether or not it requires authentication/authorization

 

I went through all of this and more in my email here:

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/james-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg03837.html

 

You haven't used standard interfaces, and you haven't addressed my other
concerns.  Instead, you've served up a warmed over version of the
previous AuthService.

 

> 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 ?

 

No, but its a further point that you haven't contributed anything
useful.

 

 

> > > > 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.

> 

 

See Noel's email.  You're a liar.

 

> > 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.

 

Again, Noel seems to disagree.  He's still waiting for you to fix your
scheduler.  So this is another lie.

 

 

> You are fixing things that I wrote 9 months back and after I have sent
the

> exact problem and place where it is broken.

> 

 

This is unbelievable.  I'm not sure whether to be more aghast at the
sheer gall of this statement or at its presumption of group stupidity.
Let's consult the archives, shall we:

 

The first email that has a fix for AuthService.  It is mine.  And as of
this date, you had made no comments whatsoever about why AuthService was
broken:

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/james-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg03791.html

 

Your initial reply, where you defend the AuthService interface, and you
clearly don't believe there is a problem.  You continue to assert that
it might be an implementation problem, but the interface is ok.

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/james-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg03798.html

 

My reply:

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/james-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg03803.html

 

How on earth you can claimed that you've "identified the exact problem"
after this interchange is beyond me.  But you've already demonstrated
that you're both shameless and deceitful.

 

 

> Rest of the email doesn't merit a response, but I do wish you could
cool

> down.

 

Then you should start acting like an ethical human being.

 

--Peter