RE: [Passwordsafe-devel] Short term tasks

[Rony S. <ro...@gm...>]

Hi John,

Thanks for your comments - This is what I had in mind when I wrote that the
merge would be tricky - not the code, but presenting the collisions to the
user in a clear and logical way.

Andrew Mullican has taken the lead on portability issues. I think the first
changes will be to refactor the code to support portability (i.e., the
Bridge pattern). If you'll follow the devel mailing list, you should see the
announcement when Andrew finishes this, at which time it would make sense
for you to pitch in for a PalmOS version (although I think you can start on
the hotsync side independantly?).

Let me know if and how you'd like to participate.

	Cheers,

		Rony

-----Original Message-----
From: pas...@li...
[mailto:pas...@li...]On Behalf Of John
Baldwin
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:46 PM
To: pas...@li...
Subject: RE: [Passwordsafe-devel] Short term tasks


Hi folks.

I originally signed on board to help with PalmOS portability.  (I'd like to
eventually see a Palm
version hotsyncable to the desktop copy.)

Just a short comment regarding Gregg's comments:

> for #5, a collision check could be done and a number appended to entries
> that were the same.  in the end, it would be up to the user to
> delete/rename them.  the appended number would make them unique, but also
> keep them grouped together.  we could also append the notes section to say
> which file a particular entry came from.

I think this should be an option for the user to choose.

The program should do a pre-scan to see how many collisions will happen.  It
should inform
the user of the collision count and maybe give details on the first 2-3.
The user should have
the options of:

a) Overwrite copy "1" with copy "2" for this collision only, and continue
asking
b) Overwrite copy "2" with copy "1" for this collision only, and continue
asking
c) Overwrite all remaining collisions in copy "1" with copy "2"
d) Overwrite all remaining collisions in copy "2" with copy "1"
e) Make unique "split" (as Gregg described above), for this collision only,
and continue asking
f) Make unique "splits" for all remaining collisions
g) Discontinue the merge

For each collision (until the user issues one of the "do all" options), the
details of each
collision should be shown.

* * *

This scheme is very similar to the behavior you see when merging two
directories of files in
many file management utilities.  I think it would be intuitive to operate,
and would allow every
user to have the exact behavior they desire, every time.

I think it would also save the user some effort:
  * I might choose option (c) if I know I am updating a master list with an
update list I carry on
my laptop.  (I didn't have to manually edit the splits.)
  * I might choose option (e) if I am merging two dissimilar password
databases and don't
expect any collisions.  I might go to option (f) if there turned out to be
many collisions.  Or I
might use (g) and rethink my strategy.


I hope my comments are worth more than...

Just my $0.02 worth,
            -- john baldwin




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Passwordsafe-devel mailing list
Pas...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/passwordsafe-devel