Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] create_account & create_group placement

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT optimaltec.com>
  • To: SM Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] create_account & create_group placement
  • Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:16:17 -0400

Thanks for putting it so clearly Seth! Yes, I completely agree with this
and the ideas. Except one thing actually: once an account is in use, it
must never be deleted, that's an accountability violation, so I think we
don't need to concern ourselves with account deletion. Maybe something
as simple as ACCOUNT variable in DETAILS would suffice.

Sergey.

On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 12:06 -0700, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> I think the disagreement isn't over what to call the use of a function
> versus a variable in DETAILS. I think it's between whether or not
> account creation is common enough to pollute the DETAILS namespace which
> would require sorcery modification. Init scripts are about as common as
> user creation, I think -- the point I think the sorcery team would make
> is that the less that has to be parsed in sorcery itself the better.
> Variables have to be explicitly checked -- functions don't. In a
> general movement toward modularity, the init script handling might be
> moved out into grimoire functions too -- I think that's one design goal
> the sorcery team is trying to do. For these two reasons, I suspect
> without a design realignment, we would want to keep as much as possible
> out of DETAILS. On the other hand, the point of DETAILS is to include
> as much "basic handling" as to make the vast majority of programs
> installable without any helpers. This is why downloading is handled in
> DETAILS and spell metainformation goes in it, so I'm not sure what the
> sorcery team would want.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page