On Tuesday 25 September 2007 08:00:16 pm John Simpson wrote: > On 2007-09-25, at 1331, Joshua Megerman wrote: > >> i vote for "a" and "c" during a transition period, then "c" as the > >> only option after that. > >> > >> in either case, i think "d" might be taking the idea too far. > > > > Yeah, I realized that after the fact. I'm great ad coming up with > > lots of > > ideas of what can be dine, and then I need to rein them in as to what > > _should_ be done :) > > oh i see, so you're an "idea rat" (pardon the dilbert reference)... > surprising, most idea rats end up in marketing because they can't > program their way out of a wet paper bag, but from what i've seen > your code seems pretty solid. maybe you're a better patcher than a > writer? i suffer from that myself- i find i do a better job of > programming if i'm patching existing code, or writing against a > previous design... problem is that when i start something from > scratch, i tend to not do that separate design step ahead of time and > end up slowing myself down. > > the other thing i seem to be good at is the "sanity checking", poking > holes in ideas (my own included.) at past jobs, windows developers > always hated to have me sit in on their meetings, because i would > always bring up security issues before they had even started writing > code... they eventually got over it, after their web apps got hacked > and they had to very quickly add the changes i had originally > suggested, while i rebuilt the server and restored from a backup > taken just before they installed their stuff... i just don't like it > when other peoples' stupidity causes me to have extra work. > Yeah, that sounds about right - I'm great with patching (I learned C (I had experience with Basic & Pascal previously) by pulling in code from about half a dozen different MUDs and combining them into one), and I can take existing concepts and make programs for them moderately well, but I've rarely done full-scale development from the ground up. I've got a couple of things that I made from ground-zero that I'll get around to releasing someday, but I'm less inclined to spend my day doing all of the necessary things for proper software development than tinkering :)
And I'm right with you as to poking holes in ideas - I have a tendency to "think outside the box", occasionally to the annoyance of the people I work with... > >>> 3) In all cases, even if the vpopmail binaries are linked against > >>> the > >>> shared library, the static library libvpopmail.a should be built > >>> since > >>> some programs expect it. > >> > >> maybe for interim versions, to give other programs' developers time > >> to deal with the change... but i think that a "vpopmail version 6" > >> should be "shared only". > > > > I don't see why there shouldn't be a static library that has > > exactly the > > same ABI as the shared one, in case someone wants (or needs) a static > > binary. But they should be interchangable at compile time. > > maybe we can always build the shared version, and have a configure > option "--with-static-library" (which would not be active by default) > which builds a static "libvpopmail.a" for people who may need it, > even though the programs in the vpopmail package won't need it? > I can see it either way, but it's one of those things that doesn't really drive the code development, so it can be decided later :) > either way, i think we need to move the thread over to the devel > list. anybody who's interested should subscribe and look for it there. > Sounds good to me - I'm on the list, so I'll see it there (and am cc'ing it here). Josh -- Joshua Megerman SJGames MIB #5273 - OGRE AI Testing Division You can't win; You can't break even; You can't even quit the game. - Layman's translation of the Laws of Thermodynamics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
