FW: Processing Password Questions

[Fairlight]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 02:25:20PM -0500, Nancy Palmquist may or may not have
proven themselves an utter git by pronouncing:
> 
> But the problem comes when you have none, and it is accidentally 
> assigned along the way.  As a developer, you will not notice any 
> difference, but each process that is saved will be polluted with the 
> password.
> 
> If you set one and let it attach to every table you update, it will 
> never attach a password you do not know.

And how might this happen?  filePro just doesn't randomly tack in passwords
when they haven't been assigned at all at any point in time.  This means a
password was entered -at some point-.  This stuff doesn't "just appear" out
of nowhere, sorry.

Possible explanations:

1) Poor system/business security and/or co-developer/user training whereby
someone assigns a password without the main developer's knowledge.

2) The developer blacked out and assigned a password from a fugue state.

3) The developer isn't competant enough to track their own password usage.

4) The developer has multiple personalities, none of which know each
other's passwords.

5) The developer's cat was allowed to walk on the keyboard.

There are probably a few more, but all are going to be in the same vein.

All of these (and any -logical- explanation as to how a password gets
"magically" assigned at some point in future) lead back to a problem with
the developer or their site, not with fP site passwords--which I still
consider to be more of a PITA than they're worth.  There are many problems
I'd lay at the feet of filePro, and this simply isn't one of them.

> Now that all opinions have been voiced, you can decide what will be best 
> for you.

Anyone with an insightful clue and two neurons to rub together already knew
what was best for them, or they wouldn't be doing it the way they are.  I'm
going to assume that anyone that bothered to voice an opinion had one for a
reason, whether you happen to agree with it or not.

Everything else has been redundant for anyone except the neophytic user.  

You called for a vote, we voted.  This last post sounded more like an
attempt to convince everyone your way was best than an airing of further
viewpoint.  One had already happened via a "roll call" vote, including your
prior statements of opinion.  Then you came back and hammered on it some
more.  The only people you're likely to sway are people that don't know
enough to figure things out for themselves in the first place.  If I want
to be converted, I know some nice Jehovah's Witnesses that come around to
chat once in a while...

Sorry, just how I see it.  YMMV (and almost certainly does).

mark->