Re: Auth_Groups and Auth_Permissions

On 15 août 04, at 05:51, Jackson Miller wrote:

David Costa wrote:

I see you point but, once again sorry if I am too upfront, I don't see something like "Auth_Permissions will be a package designed to allow basic permission checking (true/false will probably be the only form supported, unless there is huge demand for more)," true/false only permission package to provide any substantial benefit to PEAR users.

I have been truely amazed at the lack of imagination on the PEAR dev list lately. PEAR developers are not exactly breaking new ground in the world of web development (let alone the broader scope of software development), yet the members of this list seem really quick to shoot something down if after reading one email they cannot see the benefit. David, please don't take this as an attack on you. This email is just an imputus to speak up about the growing concern I have had.

That is your opinion and I respect that. In my opinion the purpose of a draft is to gather comments from other developers. You might not like some of these comments and many times I was wrong about something. I just try to provide some feedback to the best of my knowledge and I am always happy to be proven wrong whenever is the case. There is a difference between breaking new grounds and splitting an existing package functionality and create a light version (with a different API etc..but) of it. I don't think any of my proposal is breaking new grounds but I always try to find something new or at least not existing in PEAR.

snip

To my the current existing Auth packages on pear (Auth, Liveuser) do cover this category very well. Of course this is just my opinion but as you are just at a draft level, I wouldn't encourage new packages in this direction.

This just stifles progression. I would encourage developers to solve any problem they have in a way that allows others to use their code. PEAR doesn't accept packages based on the initial idea and to discourage participation is ludicrous.

It is just my opinion and I am just a pear developer like Jon on yourself. He also said that doesn't have a lot of time so I tried to provide some input at this draft stage.

My personal take on the pear-dev community these days is that there are too many egos and quick tounges. Maybe there should be less time spent voicing an oppinion on every damn email and more time coding, deploying, scaling, and supporting real-world apps.

Sorry but this is a bit of non sense. If someone posts a requests for comments, I try to comment. Does this mean that I don't spend time coding or deploying ? I could just ignore any mailing list request like many pear developers do, but I don't. It's my choice, doesn't make me any better but is something I enjoy doing. What I found rather odd is asking for comments and then harping on with the "PEAR conspiracy " mantra if the comments are not the one we expect. Eventually I think that I the pear-dev community is very diverse and I wouldn't generalize.

Maybe this would help there to be a little more immagination. Jon is entirely free to ignore my comments, move on with a proposal and the relevant code and receive a lot of votes. To me he could better devote his time to more interesting packages.

Regards David Costa