Re: vOTE CALL: RE: Counter Proposal Paper Draft 0.9

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Farrukh Najmi
>> I recommend a NO vote because:
> - Its not obvious to my how this proposal is better than the existing
> proposal (from a pros cons point of view).
> - the state of this document needs work
> - the estimated time to incorporate this document is great
> - the "dynamics" of this project team reminds me of a bunch of old mules
> that prevent us from agreeing on a quick path
>
> We'll have more time to talk later about this document, as I want more
> information such as the origin etc.   I do see some interesting use
cases,
> but again, not enough time.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Halleluh - what a surprise - and my prediction hath come to pass.

Privately I made the prediction on Monday that - once I had busted my chops
this week and hustled on all this - the final analysis from the Sun bastion

would be - we have not had enough time, there is not enough time, there's
not been enough time spent on this.  Frankly this is a tired and broken
record.

Let's see now - 20 odd methods - 5 odd people, 4 a piece.   If we focus in
on REALLY getting an abstraction layer API built here - it is possible.

However - at the start of the week I had plenty of specific detail 
'Oh - you're inventing your own scripting process / query syntax", 
now I've attempt to listen to that by allowing implementors to 
specify that in a programming tool of their choice 
'Oh - its too vague, it does not give specifics'.

Ok - well the bottom line for me is that OQL query statements is 
something no DBA worth their salt would allow against a 
backend server over an open channel.  So what's it to be?

I can add more specifics back in - but then I am I going to hear
shouts of 'foul' again?

Someone else can run round the track, work up a sweat, be
pelted with rocks, and then told to run round the opposite
way this time.

Thanks, DW.