[Mailman-Developers] Informal "MEP" process, anyone? [was: PHP Wrappers?]
Kevin McCann
kmccann at cruciverb.com
Thu Nov 17 06:52:07 CET 2005
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>On the other hand, the ad hoc DB integration ideas I've seen discussed
>to date all have a very strong "works for me" flavor to them. Ie, "if
>you want something generalizable, then MM people will have to do
>that, but here's a proof of concept."
>
> Kevin> despite the fact that people have been begging for it for
> Kevin> half a decade. They beg for it on the Mailman list. They
> Kevin> beg for it on the Sympa list.
>
>Beg, build, or buy. Plan A has failed. Try Plan B or Plan C.
>
>
I guess I have to watch the words I choose. Erase the word "beg", cease
any mental imagery it might be conjuring up. I simply mean that there is
a clear requirement for easier integration and people have expressed
that need. That's all. Should it be articulated better than it has been
so far on this list? Yes, probably.
>My suggestion is Plan B, because Plan C probably requires a fork (as
>you mention, Barry is committed elsewhere). If I needed what you
>need, instead of posting the call for discussion _here_, I would post
>on *Mailman-Users*:
>
> (1) summarize the current facilities (like MemberAdapter, however
> weak they may be),
>
> (2) find out what John Dennis has been up to and what ad hoc patches
> have been submitted, and summarize their interfaces (not the
> implementations!),
>
> (3) find out what the objections to the methods described in (1) and
> (2) are, both from would-be users and from the leading developers,
> and summarize them.
>
>
Rather than look at what has been done in the way of patches I'd be more
inclined to contribute toward a design for MM3. I have actually worked
on the specs for a SQL-enabled MLM system, based on user and admin
requirements. Picture an open source version of Lyris but with better
integration capabilities. I'd be happy to share them. I worked on it in
2002, so it might take a bit of digging.
>And if in fact you're right, the MM developers don't care, and snub
>you ... you've lost nothing! You've got the spec you need to attract
>both developers and backing (including funding)---and the MM2.1 code
>base to start from.
>
>
Absolutely right. It would be nice to see developments happen in the MM
project, but ultimately another project may be required to make certain
things happen.
- Kevin
More information about the Mailman-Developers
mailing list