Doug Chamberlin wrote:

>
> Sorry, folks, but I've had just about enough of this purist nonsense.
>

I don't know about purism, but if a feature is going to go into InterBase it
should work as expected and its purpose be clearly documented. If a feature is
added purely to suit a perceived marketing gap then its utility is, from a
development pov, questionable.

How are developers meant to know which bit is for the comfort of senior
management and which bits are for real? How do you allocate InterBase
development and QA time for such features? Do they get as much as enhancements
that are really necessary for the engine? If not, then how reliable are they?

This thread is largely circular. A need for better overall security of the
database is acknowledged. No credible proposition has yet been tabled to address
it (tell me I'm wrong), that hasn't had numerous shortcomings exposed. And
around it goes again.

I may have got all this wrong, but InterBase primarily sells itself on technical
merit. Technical merit gives marketing something to work with. When marketing
imperatives drive development InterBase will be a different product.

And in my previous thread I made absolutely no reference to the value of a cod
encryption scheme. The suggestion was made that encryption be added largely
because it would address a marketing shortcoming. I was discussing the value of
'purely marketing features' from a development standpoint. It was in the context
of this thread, admittedly, but I did prefix my comments with 'This is sort of
an aside...'

> ALl we have is a documentation problem which points out the
> shortcomings of the feature.
>

Exactly.

Bullet point - InterBase supports data encryption.

Documentation extract - Do a, b and c to encrypt your database. It'll run slower
and any competent developer will be able to break it with a quick hack in five
minutes (but don't tell management).


I don't think it is purism to be unable to take this seriously, however good an
idea it sounds. And if one starts putting such 'features' into the engine then
how seriously must we take people who use them? Obviously very seriously indeed.


Paul
--

Paul Reeves
Fleet River Software