On 07/12/2011 14:38, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I believe that's sufficient.
>
> When I reviewed your original proposal I was thinking the same thing you
> were: why involve the UI component if you aren't needing new UI; just
> talk to a storage server.  Also, because you have fairly large latitude
> in your contract, I was simply evaluating for "would it work," not "is
> there a simpler way." I do think reorganizing the classes and having
> clear rules like:
>
> * Code above the storage server boundary may only manipulate the storage
>    server through a well defined set of interfaces
>
> then that should be fine.
Great.

> I don't have the SOW in front of me. The rearchitecture item does not
> call for multiple storage server backends. I don't remember if the SOW
> calls out Mac Keychain as something to implement now or simply something
> to prepare for. If something to prepare for rather than implement now,
> then no, we don't need multiple backends in this version.
Gnome Keyring, Mac Keychain are things that should be able to be added 
"at will" (which I took to imply a requirement for 'loadable storage 
backend plugins' rather than meaning "in the future, without too much 
trouble" - that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it :-).

> Obviously, though, confirming an interface like this is good is much
> easier with multiple objects.
If I have time, I may test the design by implementing the basics of a 
different backend (Mac Keychain?)

Thanks again.

Pete

-- 
Pete Fotheringham
Codethink Ltd
http://codethink.co.uk
+44 7740 351755