Re: [Phplib-users] Ruminations on the Situation

[Giancarlo <gia...@na...>]

Il 20:28, domenica 30 giugno 2002, Bob Bowker ha scritto:

> the very fact that you can fork the library and name it after yourself =
and
> PUBLISH THE WORK WITHIN THE PHPLIB CVS - that's what is very sad to me =
...

Maybe I have not been clear.=20

I CANNOT PUBLISH THE WORK WITHIN THE PHPLIB CVS=20

because I resigned spontaneously my 'write access' a few days ago, becaus=
e=20
there does not exist a discussion on anything and I don'ty want that.

So, please, don't insist on that.

Gian

>
> Please don't miss the point, Gian - your code may be what everyone want=
s in
> the library, it may be tight, and right ... but self-publishing within =
the
> boundaries of an existing project, IMHO, is not the way to go.  Put the
> patches on your own web site, and submit them to the CVS for considerat=
ion
> for inclusion in the next release, yes ... the fact that you didn't (or
> couldn't, or wouldn't) do it this way is a telling symptom of the issue
> that I called "sad" in the first place.
>
> Bob.
>
> At 11:04 PM 6/29/2002 +0200, you wrote:
> >I have to reply, and I am frank.
> >
> >I have recently resigned my 'write access' as a phplib core developer,=
 so
> >I cannot be accused of imposing anything.
> >So there is NO anarchy.
> >
> >I have been following and contributed to phplib since version 4 or 5, =
and
> >please note that the actual structure of the session->start method has
> >been my idea, I let you imagine how comprehensible was before. That ma=
de
> >extending to php4 session pretty easy.
> >
> >Now I have devised a similar rationalization of $auth->start, which is=
 an
> >example doc of spaghetti code. That nobody can maintain.
> >
> >It will make auth a more maneageable class, in line with modern  nuke =
type
> >needs
> >it is a drop replacement, backwards compatible.
> >
> >For the rest there's nothing than better security, because these thing=
s
> >evolve quick, can you imagine? and there constantly lots of new threat=
s. A
> >library whose core functions are session and authentication cannot be
> >static. Sorry.
> >
> >But it is nothing that should worry those who are not interested. And
> >those who are interested should document and participate, please.
> >And if really nobody is interested then it means all this doesn't mind=
=2E
> >
> >So my choice should clearly let you understand that I am on the user s=
ide,
> >if not ours.
> >
> >Gian
> >
> >  Bob Bowker <bo...@iN...> a =E9crit le  29/6/02 11:08:
> > >It's sad to see what used to
> > >be a very stable, usable
> > >library descend into
> > >chaos, confusion and
> > >anarchy ... people heading
> > >off in their own
> > >directions, claiming the
> > >umbrella of phpLib but
> > >naming their rewrites after
> > >themselves, all with
> > >seemingly no coordination or
> > >direction or vision
> > >whatsoever.  No wonder the
> > >need for PEAR was so
> > >immediately obvious to so
> > >many people - not that PEAR
> > >was the best choice (in many
> > >ways worse than
> > >phpLib), but I really do
> > >understand why the core
> > >PHP developers decided on
> > >something other than
> > >phpLib.
> > >
> > >The CVS is in such a mess
> > >that someone has to write a
> > >how-to and post it on
> > >a personal web site!  Then
> > >Giancarlo writes and releases
> > >several scripts
> > >(Nathan - did I miss the
> > >announcement that he is
> > >now a new "committee of 1"
> > >determining the philosophy
> >
> >I made you aware of facts you ignored.
> >
> > >and direction of the
> > >project?) and there goes
> > >Donncha's roadmap again ...
> > >
> > >Giancarlo, before you
> > >immediately flame me, I
> > >appreciate and admire your
> > >work - and this is nowhere
> > >near "personal".  I just don't
> > >think your
> > >unilateral actions
> >
> >Actions?
> >
> >have a
> >
> > >place in the overall scheme
> > >of things.  We
> > >desperately need someone,
> > >or a group of "someones",
> > >who will coordinate
> > >this project.
> > >
> > >I say this knowing full well
> > >that the immediate
> > >response is "Why don't you
> > >do it, Bob?" and that my
> > >answer is the same as
> > >everyone else's - "I don't
> > >have the time" ... which, I
> > >suppose, in many people's
> > >minds, removes my
> > >right to complain.  But that's
> > >why the subject is
> > >"Ruminations" and not
> > >"Problems" ...
> > >
> > >KK has moved on to other
> > >projects, but his hand on the
> > >tiller and his
> > >vision are sorely missed,
> > >imho.  We've been using
> > >phpLib in our work here
> > >for almost 4 years now, and
> > >in spite of the lack of
> > >"official" progress and
> > >register_globals and PHP4
> > >and all the meanderings of
> > >this past 18 months or
> > >so, we still rely on the library
> > >-- but on our own very
> > >highly modified
> > >version of 7.2 -- on every
> > >site we do ... regardless of
> > >the installation,
> > >regardless of the OS, and
> > >regardless of all the latest
> > >and greatest
> > >MyCodeIsBetter streams
> > >that are cropping up.
> > >
> > >A lot of people have spent
> > >long hours on this library,
> >
> >I have been one of them.
> >
> > >and for their code
> > >(as well as the learning
> > >experience that they've
> > >provided me), I'm very
> > >grateful.  But my company
> > >can't afford to base our
> > >work on something that
> > >is no longer predictably
> > >(please note that I said
> > >"predictably") reliable ...
> >
> >Security is an evolving process.
> >
> > >Above all, after all, and with
> > >personal appreciation --
> > >thanks, KK ...
> > >
> > >Bob.