[Mailman-Developers] Informal "MEP" process, anyone? [was: PHP Wrappers?]

[Kevin McCann]

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