Toolkit initialization implications

[Ivan R. Judson]

> At 04:14 PM 5/9/2003 -0500, Ivan R. Judson wrote:
> 
> >This large change this close the the code freeze is very 
> worrysome to 
> >me.
> 
> I wouldn't consider this a large change. It's a set of small 
> changes that 
> make  the security-related initialization of the various part 
> of the system 
> sane.

Size-wise, sure, a small number of lines, but behaviorally, it's changed how
*everything* starts -- that's pretty significant, if the word large is the
issue.
 
> >We need to have seem this kind of outline of what was 
> involved to have 
> >made a better decision as to whether we should have solved cert mgmt 
> >this way or not.
> 
> Solved it which way? The cert mgr code has been around for 
> quite some time 
> now, and I've not heard any objections to the way its been solved.

Right, and unfortunately everyone is busy, so it's probably not realistic to
expect responses in 24 hours (noon to noon) -- it'd be a good idea to
solicit responses in person in the case of short time frames.
 
> >This is not to say that this isn't a good way to solve the problem, 
> >it's hard to tell -- but we've just added more work to our load by 
> >making this change and it's all new to everyone but you.  This isn't 
> >really the best time to be making that kind of change to the 
> >assumptions.
> 
> Which assumptions - that we want to have a sane environment 
> in which to run 
> the code?

No, the fact that initialization is completely different and the details of
the new initialization have been shared only after the commit. That's a
pretty significant change for everyone to absorb. 

> >I don't think we have any choice at this point about using 
> it, but I'm 
> >extremely concerned at what it might mean for us actually 
> meeting our 
> >timeline. I'm also frustrated at the lack of information that was 
> >presented before these changes were made.
> 
> I think I've sent out more information than anyone else on any of the 
> system-wide changes that have been made to the system. 

I don't have the details to know for sure, but I could easily believe that.
It's also true that you have been instrumental in the pieces that have been
used throughout the system, namely the data store, the certificate
management, and the security. Additionally, the Globus Infrastructure. Most
everyone else (except certainly the packaging) has pretty well scoped parts
that don't touch everything. 

I think we can all do a better job at both writing more and soliciting
comments more actively, with the constant time pressure we have it would
probably be a better approach for everyone (but might have also helped this
instance) to actively solicit responses. Susanne made a good example in her
status report, asking for feedback.

--Ivan