[horde] [turba]: a Cisco phone book for Horde Turba
horde-groupware at familie-lahme.de
Fri Mar 2 14:51:46 UTC 2018
Am 02.03.2018 um 14:38 schrieb Jan Schneider:
> Zitat von Carsten <horde-groupware at familie-lahme.de>:
>> Am 02.03.2018 um 13:48 schrieb Jens Wahnes:
>>> Carsten <horde-groupware at familie-lahme.de> wrote:
>>>> As by my questions about this, here is the first working outcome of
>>>> my investigations.
>>>> Hopefully some one else can make use of it, too ;-)
>>> Since you did not find the answers you got here helpful as per your
>>> blog post, I might as well concede that I don't find your solution
>>> particularly useful. Calling it a "WFM solution" would be
>>> flattering. I certainly would not want to run your code on a system
>>> that's connected to the Internet in any way. From what I've seen in
>>> the code, it's utterly prone to SQL injection and AFAICT it does not
>>> take into account that in one Horde share, there can be entries done
>>> by different users, i.e. the share owner is not necessarily the the
>>> owner of a particular entry in the address book (or calendar). So
>>> this is never going to work for any larger installation. Too bad you
>>> didn't take your time to come up with a solution that queries the
>>> Horde API.
>> Hi Jens, all,
>> 1st thought: "What does he want?"
>> 2nd thought: "He must have had a bad night!"
>> 3rd thought: "Damn, he is serious about what he just wrote!"
>> 1st action: Got a hot cup of tea.
>> 2nd action: started writing.....
>> 3rd action: stopped writing, laid back, got a nipp from the mug,
>> deleted everything.
>> 4th action: rewriting:
>> "To be an intelligent human, does not conclude the lack of
>> understanding of different levels of beings!
>> As more intelligent the human feels, as more he is unable to change
>> his view to the view of his counterpart."
>> The only sentence left from the first storm of writing:
>> ".... You are absolutely right..." ".... take that shit of me and put
>> it into Your dump, and never think about it a second time..."
>> life long and prosper.....
> I have no idea why your first reaction was like this, since Jens gave
> you some useful, objective, sensible feedback. If you'd like to
> improve your development skills and get better at what you are doing,
> you are well advised to take such feedback seriously, question it,
> discuss it, and learn from it. As well as with any other feedback you
> got from this mailing list.
Hmm... well ok, lets fragment the text, and walk thought it:
--"..Since you did not find the answers you got here helpful as per your
Well, yes, the mailing list has done its best on that. What can I learn
from it: Say tuned to the mailing list.
--"..I might as well concede that I don't find your solution
So he does not find it useful. Ok, his opinion. Very useful!
--"..Calling it a "WFM solution" would be flattering. .."
Oh, now we get a little more personally, I would say, but ok... still a
free country. Very objective!
--"..I certainly would not want to run your code on a system that's
connected to the Internet in any way...."
Hello, I already got the point. Very sensible indeed!
From here on, it gets technical, but up to here, he just teared down my
work. This is very encouraging!
--"..From what I've seen in the code, it's utterly prone to SQL injection.."
Even so, this is another rip, Yep, he is right. But this has nothing to
do with the point for the script in its core function.
--".. AFAICT it does not take into account that in one Horde share,
there can be entries done by different users, i.e. the share owner is
not necessarily the the owner of a particular entry in the address book
(or calendar). So this is never going to work for any larger
Yeah... THIS is a good point. Let me reload, what I wrote in my first
storm about it (jep, I save such things):
"...The point of "...the share owner is not necessarily the the owner of
a particular entry in the address book (or calendar)..." is not the
entity I am relying on. It is the address book itself, and not, who made
the object contained in it.
The global Address book is shared with hundreds of phones and users. The
owner is a generic system-secure user. The content is writable for a
hand full of assistants, that all work with their respective account and
Why should I care about who did the entry, if it is clear, that it is
the global address book.
It does not mean, that the assistants personnel address book is handled
the same way.
It is only displayed on her phone, and only she can do updates to it.
Everything is fine..."
--"..Too bad you didn't take your time to come up with a solution that
queries the Horde API..."
And last sentence again a slight stab to the head.
So, now tell me something about "objective" and "sensible". Sorry, not
And I really do not see any hard suggestion of enhancements. He is only
pointing out the weaks and the unusefuls.
I don't see any suggestion of recoding, not even an example how to get
into the API.
Even he states, that he has not evaluated to complete code, and is
making assumptions about the useless stuff.
If he would have tested the code -what he cannot, as he has no use of
it, he would have found, that there was a mistake in it -I have already
corrected the post. That would have been a suggestion of enhancement to
point out, and we could have gone into the depth. But he only states,
how unuseful the code is for him, and tears it down.
If this is the sensible style recommended for this mailing list, I am
very disappointed about that!
Well, at last: he is only one of a million. Maybe that was my mistake,
to take him to "important". In the meantime I got other feedback.
Sometimes I am not very patient with myself ;-)
You can close this case now.
have a nice day and thanks for the fish.
More information about the horde