[Mailman-Developers] Informal "MEP" process, anyone? [was: PHP Wrappers?]
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
> (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
> (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
More information about the Mailman-Developers