Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

[hans_bakker]

I am sorry Adrian,

this is a perfect example of your behavior.
This was a request in 2007. introducing widget comments, an excellent
request. How can it be, you added this context stuff on may 20 2010?
Even on the original request people do not want the web.xml
configuration.

Whatever it is:
if widget.properties widgetverbose = true  i want to see widgets
comments enabled everywhere. When false i can accept a compromise it can
be overridden by web.xml.

However you are not in for compromises so i want to have this override
taken out completely, I still did not hear a business benefit for it it
it makes the system complicated for apparently no reason.

Regards.
Hans


On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:46 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Hans,
>
> It would be preferable if you would research this information for yourself, but I am willing to oblige:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1318
>
> -Adrian
>
> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > From: Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 11:33 PM
> > Adrian,
> >
> > can you please give us the business reason why you want the
> > widget
> > properties setting via widgets.properties and web.xml as
> > you implemented
> > it?
> >
> > i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of
> > view. The
> > disadvantages I already gave you.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > > Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all
> > along.
> > >
> > > If Hans copied the Example component to create a new
> > project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the
> > Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in
> > the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the
> > settings in Hans' local copy.
> > >
> > > If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example
> > component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple
> > the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
> > >
> > > Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I
> > believe generates new components) has widget comments turned
> > off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
> > >
> > > -Adrian
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: David E Jones <[hidden email]>
> > > > Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
> > /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > To: [hidden email]
> > > > Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:52 PM
> > > >
> > > > Just because you are fine with how it works
> > doesn't mean
> > > > others are fine with it, which is usually the
> > reason a
> > > > discussion starts and discovering such
> > differences and
> > > > exploring possible resolutions is the point of
> > discussions.
> > > >
> > > > For my part, getting back to the issue, I also
> > noticed that
> > > > the widget demarcation comments were no longer on
> > by default
> > > > and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think
> > that the
> > > > changes Hans made are the right way to go. In
> > fact, I think
> > > > how it worked before the round of changes to this
> > that were
> > > > done before the changes Hans made was the way to
> > go, ie:
> > > > like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
> > > > developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments
> > on) with a
> > > > configuration option to make it more
> > production-friendly
> > > > (demarcation comments off).
> > > >
> > > > -David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > David,
> > > > >
> > > > > You are missing the point - there was no
> > issue. The
> > > > code worked fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > I *have* addressed the issue. The correct
> > behavior as
> > > > designed was detailed in my first reply. If
> > anyone needs
> > > > further information they can check the commit
> > logs and the
> > > > related Jira issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he
> > didn't
> > > > understand why it wasn't working the way it
> > should. Instead
> > > > of asking for help on the mailing list, he
> > arbitrarily
> > > > changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the
> > same thing
> > > > there would be a similar reaction from the
> > community.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his
> > local
> > > > copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a
> > mistake in
> > > > someone's local copy?
> > > > >
> > > > > If Hans wants to change the design, then
> > that's fine -
> > > > lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk
> > is broken.
> > > > Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and
> > asked him
> > > > to unbreak it.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is so hard to understand about that?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Adrian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> From: David E Jones <[hidden email]>
> > > > >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
> > > >
> > /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >> To: [hidden email]
> > > > >> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:32 PM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Adrian,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I hate to say it, but it seems like
> > these messages
> > > > from
> > > > >> Hans are presenting the issue and
> > attempting to
> > > > initiate a
> > > > >> discussion on the best way to go
> > forward, and your
> > > > messages
> > > > >> are not discussing the issue and instead
> > appealing
> > > > to some
> > > > >> sort of reason to not change how things
> > are at
> > > > all.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This doesn't seem to be a two-way
> > cooperation, so
> > > > who is it
> > > > >> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -David
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hans,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> There was no need for a compromise
> > because
> > > > there was
> > > > >> no problem to begin with.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> You just admitted the problem you
> > were
> > > > experiencing
> > > > >> was due to a misconfiguration in your
> > local copy.
> > > > Your
> > > > >> solution to that misconfiguration was to
> > change
> > > > the trunk.
> > > > >> The trunk was not the problem - the
> > problem was in
> > > > your
> > > > >> local copy.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please
> > un-break
> > > > it.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> If you revert your changes and
> > properly
> > > > configure your
> > > > >> local copy, then everything will work as
> > you
> > > > expect it to.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a
> > community
> > > > of peers
> > > > >> and things will go smoother if you learn
> > to follow
> > > > advice.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -Adrian
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
> > <[hidden email]>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> From: Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684
> > -
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > >>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010,
> > 8:33 PM
> > > > >>>> Adrian,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> what i proposed to you was a
> > compromise.
> > > > You seem
> > > > >> to only
> > > > >>>> accept your
> > > > >>>> way, as happened many times in
> > the past.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> therefore i am not in for
> > compromises any
> > > > more. I
> > > > >> would
> > > > >>>> like you to
> > > > >>>> remove the context code which
> > enables the
> > > > override
> > > > >> in the
> > > > >>>> web.xml. It
> > > > >>>> makes the system unnecessarily
> > complicated
> > > > for a
> > > > >> feature i
> > > > >>>> see no use.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> It also causes to prohibit
> > widgets
> > > > comments in the
> > > > >> example
> > > > >>>> component
> > > > >>>> which should show comments by
> > default to
> > > > follow
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>> principle to show
> > > > >>>> all possibilities in the system
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>> Hans
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00
> > -0700, Adrian
> > > > Crum
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> Hans,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> It's good that you took the
> > time to
> > > > understand
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>> problem.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> What would be acceptable is
> > to revert
> > > > the
> > > > >> changes you
> > > > >>>> made so the original behavior is
> > restored.
> > > > Your
> > > > >> first commit
> > > > >>>> tried to fix something that
> > wasn't broken,
> > > > and
> > > > >> your second
> > > > >>>> commit disables a demonstration
> > of how the
> > > > widget
> > > > >> comments
> > > > >>>> can be controlled.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -Adrian
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
> > Bakker <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit:
> > r961684
> > > > -
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8,
> > 2010, 7:35
> > > > PM
> > > > >>>>>> Ok this is what
> > happened:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from
> > about 3-4
> > > > weeks ago.
> > > > >> Some
> > > > >>>> time ago i
> > > > >>>>>> created a new
> > > > >>>>>> component in hot deploy
> > using the
> > > > web.xml
> > > > >> from
> > > > >>>> the example
> > > > >>>>>> component. I
> > > > >>>>>> see the widget comments
> > are not
> > > > generated.
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>>> check
> > > > >>>>>> widget.properties and
> > > > >>>>>> see the parameter is set
> > to true.
> > > > I used
> > > > >> this
> > > > >>>> feature
> > > > >>>>>> before and never
> > > > >>>>>> had a problem. I see
> > that in
> > > > >>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> > > > >>>>>> class the
> > > > >>>>>> 'context stuff' is
> > changing true
> > > > to
> > > > >> false.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I not really see the
> > benefit of
> > > > this code,
> > > > >> why
> > > > >>>> would
> > > > >>>>>> somebody want to
> > > > >>>>>> change this setting by
> > the
> > > > context
> > > > >> content?
> > > > >>>> However, as
> > > > >>>>>> long as the
> > > > >>>>>> parameter in widget
> > properties
> > > > works, then
> > > > >> i am
> > > > >>>> fine. So i
> > > > >>>>>> made the
> > > > >>>>>> change that this
> > parameter can
> > > > only be
> > > > >> overridden
> > > > >>>> if the
> > > > >>>>>> widget comments
> > > > >>>>>> are switched of.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I now see that the
> > comments in
> > > > the
> > > > >> example
> > > > >>>> component are
> > > > >>>>>> switched off in
> > > > >>>>>> web.xml? I also do not
> > understand
> > > > this,
> > > > >>>> especially the
> > > > >>>>>> example component
> > > > >>>>>> should show comments?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I avoid this confusion
> > in the
> > > > future I
> > > > >> added a
> > > > >>>> comment in
> > > > >>>>>> widget.properties that
> > only
> > > > 'false' can
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>> overridden and
> > > > >>>>>> commented out
> > > > >>>>>> the code in web.xml of
> > the
> > > > example
> > > > >> component.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I expect this should be
> > acceptable
> > > > to
> > > > >> everybody?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>> Hans
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at
> > 00:28 +1200,
> > > > Scott
> > > > >> Gray
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> Hi Hans,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Two points:
> > > > >>>>>>> 1.  Calm down,
> > this is
> > > > just a
> > > > >>>> discussion.
> > > > >>>>>> Telling Adrian to look
> > at the code
> > > > is
> > > > >> perfectly
> > > > >>>> valid,
> > > > >>>>>> getting mad and making
> > threats is
> > > > not
> > > > >>>>>>> 2.  You're not
> > the first
> > > > to
> > > > >> mention it
> > > > >>>> but I
> > > > >>>>>> don't know where this
> > idea of a
> > > > veto came
> > > > >> from,
> > > > >>>> it doesn't
> > > > >>>>>> exist.  When
> > required, the
> > > > PMC as a
> > > > >> group
> > > > >>>> can make
> > > > >>>>>> binding decisions but
> > not
> > > > individuals.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >>>>>>> Scott
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at
> > 12:17 AM,
> > > > Hans
> > > > >> Bakker
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> please check the
> > code
> > > > before you
> > > > >>>> comment?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> i changed it
> > because the
> > > > comments
> > > > >> were
> > > > >>>> not shown
> > > > >>>>>> by default anymore as
> > > > >>>>>>>> was originally.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> If you go that
> > far , i
> > > > will go so
> > > > >> far
> > > > >>>> and will
> > > > >>>>>> use my veto and revert
> > > > >>>>>>>> the code that
> > added this
> > > > context
> > > > >> stuff?
> > > > >>>> 'true' in
> > > > >>>>>> the properties file
> > > > >>>>>>>> should always
> > show the
> > > > widgets
> > > > >>>> comments
> > > > >>>>>> irrespective of the
> > context.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> no wonder there
> > aren't
> > > > any
> > > > >> significant
> > > > >>>> changes in
> > > > >>>>>> the last few
> > > > >>>>>>>> months ....
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hans
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu,
> > 2010-07-08 at
> > > > 04:47
> > > > >> -0700,
> > > > >>>> Adrian Crum
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Then you
> > should change
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> description, not
> > > > >>>>>> the code. The intended
> > behavior
> > > > is:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> The
> > properties setting
> > > > is the
> > > > >>>> default, it can
> > > > >>>>>> be overridden in the
> > web.xml file
> > > > >>>> (application-wide
> > > > >>>>>> setting), or in the
> > context
> > > > >> (screen-specific
> > > > >>>> setting).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> --- On Thu,
> > 7/8/10,
> > > > Hans
> > > > >> Bakker
> > > > >>>> <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> From:
> > Hans Bakker
> > > > <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject:
> > Re: svn
> > > > commit:
> > > > >>>> r961684 -
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Date:
> > Thursday,
> > > > July 8,
> > > > >> 2010,
> > > > >>>> 3:13 AM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I agree
> > with what
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> description of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the code
> > says at
> > > > the top.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> your
> > setting makes
> > > > that
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>>>> widget.verbose by
> > default is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> false
> > and the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> messages
> > are not
> > > > shown.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hans
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> P.S. i
> > missed the
> > > > last
> > > > >>>> comments, which
> > > > >>>>>> one?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu,
> > 2010-07-08
> > > > at
> > > > >> 21:54
> > > > >>>> +1200, Scott
> > > > >>>>>> Gray wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> > context
> > > > setting
> > > > >> should
> > > > >>>> override
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > widget.properties
> > > > setting,
> > > > >> that
> > > > >>>> is the
> > > > >>>>>> only reason why we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> have a
> > context
> > > > version of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>> setting.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > Please respond
> > > > to this
> > > > >> one,
> > > > >>>> you
> > > > >>>>>> haven't responded to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > discussion
> > > > regarding
> > > > >> your
> > > > >>>> last commit
> > > > >>>>>> yet.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > Regards
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > Scott
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > HotWax Media
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On
> > 8/07/2010,
> > > > at 9:49
> > > > >> PM,
> > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Author:
> > > > hansbak
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Date: Thu
> > > > >> Jul  8
> > > > >>>> 09:49:57
> > > > >>>>>> 2010
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > New
> > > > Revision:
> > > > >> 961684
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Log:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > make
> > > > >>>>>>
> > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> > > > as the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > descriptions
> > > > states:
> > > > >> Widget
> > > > >>>> boundary
> > > > >>>>>> comments are enabled by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > widgetVerbose true
> > > > >> in
> > > > >>>> the context
> > > > >>>>>> Map, OR by setting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > widget.verbose=true in
> > > > >>>> widget.properties.
> > > > >>>>>> And not let the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> context
> > override
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> widget.properties
> > > > >>>>>> setting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Modified:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Modified:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ==============================================================================
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > ---
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > (original)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > +++
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thu
> > Jul  8
> > > > 09:49:57
> > > > >> 2010
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > @@ -21,6
> > > > +21,7 @@
> > > > >>>> package
> > > > >>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >>>> java.io.Serializable;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >> java.util.Map;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > +import
> > > > >>>>>>
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >>>>>>
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > @@ -110,7
> > > > +111,7
> > > > >> @@
> > > > >>>> public class
> > > > >>>>>> ModelWidget
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > implements Seri
> > > >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>  
> > > > >>>>     */
> > > >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>  
> > > > >>    public
> > > > >>>> static
> > > > >>>>>> boolean
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>
> > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> > > > >>>> extends
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > Object>
> > > > context) {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > >    
> > > > >>>>    
> > > > >>>>>> boolean
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> result
> > =
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > "widget.verbose"));
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > -
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>>>    if
> > > > >>>>>> (context != null)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > +
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>>>    if
> > > > >>>>>> (result == false
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > && context
> > > > !=
> > > > >> null) {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >    String str =
> > > > >>>> (String)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >    if (str !=
> > > > >>>> null) {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >    result =
> > > > >>>>>> "true".equals(str);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> > twitter:
> > > > http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Myself
> > on twitter:
> > > > http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > Antwebsystems.com:
> > > > >> Quality
> > > > >>>> services for
> > > > >>>>>> competitive rates.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > >>>>>>>> Myself on
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > Antwebsystems.com:
> > > > Quality
> > > > >> services
> > > > >>>> for
> > > > >>>>>> competitive rates.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > >>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > >>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> > Quality
> > > > services for
> > > > >>>> competitive rates.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>    
> > > >    
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --
> > > > >>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > >>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > >>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> > services for
> > > > >> competitive rates.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> >
> > --
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >
> >
>
>
>      

--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[hans_bakker]

That is exactly what my change is doing,
only let the context override when the widget.properties parameter is
false: no widget comments unless enabled over web.xml

Regards,
Hans

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:56 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:

> I can think of one.
> adding new components to a production site and not wanting to activated
> for the whole application.
>
> Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/8/2010 11:33 PM:
> > Adrian,
> >
> > can you please give us the business reason why you want the widget
> > properties setting via widgets.properties and web.xml as you implemented
> > it?
> >
> > i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of view. The
> > disadvantages I already gave you.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all along.
> >>
> >> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the settings in Hans' local copy.
> >>
> >> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
> >>
> >> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I believe generates new components) has widget comments turned off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >>
> >> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
> >>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>> To: [hidden email]
> >>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:52 PM
> >>>
> >>> Just because you are fine with how it works doesn't mean
> >>> others are fine with it, which is usually the reason a
> >>> discussion starts and discovering such differences and
> >>> exploring possible resolutions is the point of discussions.
> >>>
> >>> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also noticed that
> >>> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on by default
> >>> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think that the
> >>> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In fact, I think
> >>> how it worked before the round of changes to this that were
> >>> done before the changes Hans made was the way to go, ie:
> >>> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
> >>> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments on) with a
> >>> configuration option to make it more production-friendly
> >>> (demarcation comments off).
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> You are missing the point - there was no issue. The
> >>> code worked fine.
> >>>>
> >>>> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct behavior as
> >>> designed was detailed in my first reply. If anyone needs
> >>> further information they can check the commit logs and the
> >>> related Jira issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he didn't
> >>> understand why it wasn't working the way it should. Instead
> >>> of asking for help on the mailing list, he arbitrarily
> >>> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the same thing
> >>> there would be a similar reaction from the community.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his local
> >>> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a mistake in
> >>> someone's local copy?
> >>>>
> >>>> If Hans wants to change the design, then that's fine -
> >>> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk is broken.
> >>> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and asked him
> >>> to unbreak it.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is so hard to understand about that?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Adrian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
> >>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:32 PM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Adrian,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hate to say it, but it seems like these messages
> >>> from
> >>>>> Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to
> >>> initiate a
> >>>>> discussion on the best way to go forward, and your
> >>> messages
> >>>>> are not discussing the issue and instead appealing
> >>> to some
> >>>>> sort of reason to not change how things are at
> >>> all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so
> >>> who is it
> >>>>> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -David
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hans,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There was no need for a compromise because
> >>> there was
> >>>>> no problem to begin with.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You just admitted the problem you were
> >>> experiencing
> >>>>> was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy.
> >>> Your
> >>>>> solution to that misconfiguration was to change
> >>> the trunk.
> >>>>> The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in
> >>> your
> >>>>> local copy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break
> >>> it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you revert your changes and properly
> >>> configure your
> >>>>> local copy, then everything will work as you
> >>> expect it to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community
> >>> of peers
> >>>>> and things will go smoother if you learn to follow
> >>> advice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
> >>>>>
> >>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 8:33 PM
> >>>>>>> Adrian,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> what i proposed to you was a compromise.
> >>> You seem
> >>>>> to only
> >>>>>>> accept your
> >>>>>>> way, as happened many times in the past.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> therefore i am not in for compromises any
> >>> more. I
> >>>>> would
> >>>>>>> like you to
> >>>>>>> remove the context code which enables the
> >>> override
> >>>>> in the
> >>>>>>> web.xml. It
> >>>>>>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated
> >>> for a
> >>>>> feature i
> >>>>>>> see no use.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It also causes to prohibit widgets
> >>> comments in the
> >>>>> example
> >>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>> which should show comments by default to
> >>> follow
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> principle to show
> >>>>>>> all possibilities in the system
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian
> >>> Crum
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hans,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's good that you took the time to
> >>> understand
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What would be acceptable is to revert
> >>> the
> >>>>> changes you
> >>>>>>> made so the original behavior is restored.
> >>> Your
> >>>>> first commit
> >>>>>>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken,
> >>> and
> >>>>> your second
> >>>>>>> commit disables a demonstration of how the
> >>> widget
> >>>>> comments
> >>>>>>> can be controlled.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684
> >>> -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 7:35
> >>> PM
> >>>>>>>>> Ok this is what happened:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4
> >>> weeks ago.
> >>>>> Some
> >>>>>>> time ago i
> >>>>>>>>> created a new
> >>>>>>>>> component in hot deploy using the
> >>> web.xml
> >>>>> from
> >>>>>>> the example
> >>>>>>>>> component. I
> >>>>>>>>> see the widget comments are not
> >>> generated.
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>> widget.properties and
> >>>>>>>>> see the parameter is set to true.
> >>> I used
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>>> feature
> >>>>>>>>> before and never
> >>>>>>>>> had a problem. I see that in
> >>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> >>>>>>>>> class the
> >>>>>>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true
> >>> to
> >>>>> false.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I not really see the benefit of
> >>> this code,
> >>>>> why
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>> somebody want to
> >>>>>>>>> change this setting by the
> >>> context
> >>>>> content?
> >>>>>>> However, as
> >>>>>>>>> long as the
> >>>>>>>>> parameter in widget properties
> >>> works, then
> >>>>> i am
> >>>>>>> fine. So i
> >>>>>>>>> made the
> >>>>>>>>> change that this parameter can
> >>> only be
> >>>>> overridden
> >>>>>>> if the
> >>>>>>>>> widget comments
> >>>>>>>>> are switched of.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I now see that the comments in
> >>> the
> >>>>> example
> >>>>>>> component are
> >>>>>>>>> switched off in
> >>>>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand
> >>> this,
> >>>>>>> especially the
> >>>>>>>>> example component
> >>>>>>>>> should show comments?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I avoid this confusion in the
> >>> future I
> >>>>> added a
> >>>>>>> comment in
> >>>>>>>>> widget.properties that only
> >>> 'false' can
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>> overridden and
> >>>>>>>>> commented out
> >>>>>>>>> the code in web.xml of the
> >>> example
> >>>>> component.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I expect this should be acceptable
> >>> to
> >>>>> everybody?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200,
> >>> Scott
> >>>>> Gray
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Two points:
> >>>>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is
> >>> just a
> >>>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code
> >>> is
> >>>>> perfectly
> >>>>>>> valid,
> >>>>>>>>> getting mad and making threats is
> >>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> 2.  You're not the first
> >>> to
> >>>>> mention it
> >>>>>>> but I
> >>>>>>>>> don't know where this idea of a
> >>> veto came
> >>>>> from,
> >>>>>>> it doesn't
> >>>>>>>>> exist.  When required, the
> >>> PMC as a
> >>>>> group
> >>>>>>> can make
> >>>>>>>>> binding decisions but not
> >>> individuals.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM,
> >>> Hans
> >>>>> Bakker
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> please check the code
> >>> before you
> >>>>>>> comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> i changed it because the
> >>> comments
> >>>>> were
> >>>>>>> not shown
> >>>>>>>>> by default anymore as
> >>>>>>>>>>> was originally.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If you go that far , i
> >>> will go so
> >>>>> far
> >>>>>>> and will
> >>>>>>>>> use my veto and revert
> >>>>>>>>>>> the code that added this
> >>> context
> >>>>> stuff?
> >>>>>>> 'true' in
> >>>>>>>>> the properties file
> >>>>>>>>>>> should always show the
> >>> widgets
> >>>>>>> comments
> >>>>>>>>> irrespective of the context.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> no wonder there aren't
> >>> any
> >>>>> significant
> >>>>>>> changes in
> >>>>>>>>> the last few
> >>>>>>>>>>> months ....
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at
> >>> 04:47
> >>>>> -0700,
> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should change
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> description, not
> >>>>>>>>> the code. The intended behavior
> >>> is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The properties setting
> >>> is the
> >>>>>>> default, it can
> >>>>>>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
> >>>>>>> (application-wide
> >>>>>>>>> setting), or in the context
> >>>>> (screen-specific
> >>>>>>> setting).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10,
> >>> Hans
> >>>>> Bakker
> >>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker
> >>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn
> >>> commit:
> >>>>>>> r961684 -
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday,
> >>> July 8,
> >>>>> 2010,
> >>>>>>> 3:13 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with what
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> description of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the code says at
> >>> the top.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your setting makes
> >>> that
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> widget.verbose by default is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> false and the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> messages are not
> >>> shown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. i missed the
> >>> last
> >>>>>>> comments, which
> >>>>>>>>> one?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08
> >>> at
> >>>>> 21:54
> >>>>>>> +1200, Scott
> >>>>>>>>> Gray wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The context
> >>> setting
> >>>>> should
> >>>>>>> override
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties
> >>> setting,
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> is the
> >>>>>>>>> only reason why we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have a context
> >>> version of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> setting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please respond
> >>> to this
> >>>>> one,
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> haven't responded to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the discussion
> >>> regarding
> >>>>> your
> >>>>>>> last commit
> >>>>>>>>> yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010,
> >>> at 9:49
> >>>>> PM,
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author:
> >>> hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
> >>>>> Jul  8
> >>>>>>> 09:49:57
> >>>>>>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New
> >>> Revision:
> >>>>> 961684
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> >>> as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptions
> >>> states:
> >>>>> Widget
> >>>>>>> boundary
> >>>>>>>>> comments are enabled by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> >>> widgetVerbose true
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> the context
> >>>>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> widget.verbose=true in
> >>>>>>> widget.properties.
> >>>>>>>>> And not let the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> context override
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> widget.properties
> >>>>>>>>> setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ==============================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (original)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8
> >>> 09:49:57
> >>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6
> >>> +21,7 @@
> >>>>>>> package
> >>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>>> java.io.Serializable;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>> java.util.Map;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +import
> >>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7
> >>> +111,7
> >>>>> @@
> >>>>>>> public class
> >>>>>>>>> ModelWidget
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> implements Seri
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>      */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>     public
> >>>>>>> static
> >>>>>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> >>>>>>> extends
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Object>
> >>> context) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> result =
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> "widget.verbose"));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>     if
> >>>>>>>>> (context != null)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>     if
> >>>>>>>>> (result == false
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> &&  context
> >>> !=
> >>>>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>     String str =
> >>>>>>> (String)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>     if (str !=
> >>>>>>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>     result =
> >>>>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter:
> >>> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter:
> >>> http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>>>> Quality
> >>>>>>> services for
> >>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>> Quality
> >>>>> services
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> >>> services for
> >>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> >>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >

--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[BJ Freeman]

I would like to see one place that enables them all
but if that is not enabled then web.xml would.
with as many components(over 30) I have I would like the all function.

Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/9/2010 12:22 AM:

> That is exactly what my change is doing,
> only let the context override when the widget.properties parameter is
> false: no widget comments unless enabled over web.xml
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:56 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> I can think of one.
>> adding new components to a production site and not wanting to activated
>> for the whole application.
>>
>> Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/8/2010 11:33 PM:
>>> Adrian,
>>>
>>> can you please give us the business reason why you want the widget
>>> properties setting via widgets.properties and web.xml as you implemented
>>> it?
>>>
>>> i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of view. The
>>> disadvantages I already gave you.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all along.
>>>>
>>>> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the settings in Hans' local copy.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
>>>>
>>>> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I believe generates new components) has widget comments turned off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:52 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because you are fine with how it works doesn't mean
>>>>> others are fine with it, which is usually the reason a
>>>>> discussion starts and discovering such differences and
>>>>> exploring possible resolutions is the point of discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also noticed that
>>>>> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on by default
>>>>> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think that the
>>>>> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In fact, I think
>>>>> how it worked before the round of changes to this that were
>>>>> done before the changes Hans made was the way to go, ie:
>>>>> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
>>>>> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments on) with a
>>>>> configuration option to make it more production-friendly
>>>>> (demarcation comments off).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are missing the point - there was no issue. The
>>>>> code worked fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct behavior as
>>>>> designed was detailed in my first reply. If anyone needs
>>>>> further information they can check the commit logs and the
>>>>> related Jira issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he didn't
>>>>> understand why it wasn't working the way it should. Instead
>>>>> of asking for help on the mailing list, he arbitrarily
>>>>> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the same thing
>>>>> there would be a similar reaction from the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his local
>>>>> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a mistake in
>>>>> someone's local copy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Hans wants to change the design, then that's fine -
>>>>> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk is broken.
>>>>> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and asked him
>>>>> to unbreak it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is so hard to understand about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
>>>>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:32 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but it seems like these messages
>>>>> from
>>>>>>> Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to
>>>>> initiate a
>>>>>>> discussion on the best way to go forward, and your
>>>>> messages
>>>>>>> are not discussing the issue and instead appealing
>>>>> to some
>>>>>>> sort of reason to not change how things are at
>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so
>>>>> who is it
>>>>>>> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was no need for a compromise because
>>>>> there was
>>>>>>> no problem to begin with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just admitted the problem you were
>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>> was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy.
>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> solution to that misconfiguration was to change
>>>>> the trunk.
>>>>>>> The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in
>>>>> your
>>>>>>> local copy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you revert your changes and properly
>>>>> configure your
>>>>>>> local copy, then everything will work as you
>>>>> expect it to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community
>>>>> of peers
>>>>>>> and things will go smoother if you learn to follow
>>>>> advice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
>>>>>>>
>>>>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 8:33 PM
>>>>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what i proposed to you was a compromise.
>>>>> You seem
>>>>>>> to only
>>>>>>>>> accept your
>>>>>>>>> way, as happened many times in the past.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> therefore i am not in for compromises any
>>>>> more. I
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> like you to
>>>>>>>>> remove the context code which enables the
>>>>> override
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> web.xml. It
>>>>>>>>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated
>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> feature i
>>>>>>>>> see no use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also causes to prohibit widgets
>>>>> comments in the
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>> which should show comments by default to
>>>>> follow
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> principle to show
>>>>>>>>> all possibilities in the system
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian
>>>>> Crum
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's good that you took the time to
>>>>> understand
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What would be acceptable is to revert
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> changes you
>>>>>>>>> made so the original behavior is restored.
>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> first commit
>>>>>>>>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> your second
>>>>>>>>> commit disables a demonstration of how the
>>>>> widget
>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>> can be controlled.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684
>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 7:35
>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok this is what happened:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4
>>>>> weeks ago.
>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>>>> time ago i
>>>>>>>>>>> created a new
>>>>>>>>>>> component in hot deploy using the
>>>>> web.xml
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> the example
>>>>>>>>>>> component. I
>>>>>>>>>>> see the widget comments are not
>>>>> generated.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties and
>>>>>>>>>>> see the parameter is set to true.
>>>>> I used
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>> before and never
>>>>>>>>>>> had a problem. I see that in
>>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
>>>>>>>>>>> class the
>>>>>>>>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I not really see the benefit of
>>>>> this code,
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> somebody want to
>>>>>>>>>>> change this setting by the
>>>>> context
>>>>>>> content?
>>>>>>>>> However, as
>>>>>>>>>>> long as the
>>>>>>>>>>> parameter in widget properties
>>>>> works, then
>>>>>>> i am
>>>>>>>>> fine. So i
>>>>>>>>>>> made the
>>>>>>>>>>> change that this parameter can
>>>>> only be
>>>>>>> overridden
>>>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>>>>>> widget comments
>>>>>>>>>>> are switched of.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I now see that the comments in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>> component are
>>>>>>>>>>> switched off in
>>>>>>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand
>>>>> this,
>>>>>>>>> especially the
>>>>>>>>>>> example component
>>>>>>>>>>> should show comments?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I avoid this confusion in the
>>>>> future I
>>>>>>> added a
>>>>>>>>> comment in
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties that only
>>>>> 'false' can
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> overridden and
>>>>>>>>>>> commented out
>>>>>>>>>>> the code in web.xml of the
>>>>> example
>>>>>>> component.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I expect this should be acceptable
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> everybody?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200,
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> Gray
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two points:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is
>>>>> just a
>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>>> valid,
>>>>>>>>>>> getting mad and making threats is
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.  You're not the first
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> mention it
>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't know where this idea of a
>>>>> veto came
>>>>>>> from,
>>>>>>>>> it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> exist.  When required, the
>>>>> PMC as a
>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>> can make
>>>>>>>>>>> binding decisions but not
>>>>> individuals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please check the code
>>>>> before you
>>>>>>>>> comment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i changed it because the
>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> not shown
>>>>>>>>>>> by default anymore as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was originally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you go that far , i
>>>>> will go so
>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>> and will
>>>>>>>>>>> use my veto and revert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code that added this
>>>>> context
>>>>>>> stuff?
>>>>>>>>> 'true' in
>>>>>>>>>>> the properties file
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always show the
>>>>> widgets
>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>>>> irrespective of the context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no wonder there aren't
>>>>> any
>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>> changes in
>>>>>>>>>>> the last few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> months ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at
>>>>> 04:47
>>>>>>> -0700,
>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should change
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> description, not
>>>>>>>>>>> the code. The intended behavior
>>>>> is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The properties setting
>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>> default, it can
>>>>>>>>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
>>>>>>>>> (application-wide
>>>>>>>>>>> setting), or in the context
>>>>>>> (screen-specific
>>>>>>>>> setting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker
>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn
>>>>> commit:
>>>>>>>>> r961684 -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday,
>>>>> July 8,
>>>>>>> 2010,
>>>>>>>>> 3:13 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with what
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> description of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code says at
>>>>> the top.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your setting makes
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.verbose by default is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages are not
>>>>> shown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. i missed the
>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>> comments, which
>>>>>>>>>>> one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08
>>>>> at
>>>>>>> 21:54
>>>>>>>>> +1200, Scott
>>>>>>>>>>> Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The context
>>>>> setting
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> override
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties
>>>>> setting,
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>> only reason why we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a context
>>>>> version of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> setting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please respond
>>>>> to this
>>>>>>> one,
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> haven't responded to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the discussion
>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> last commit
>>>>>>>>>>> yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010,
>>>>> at 9:49
>>>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author:
>>>>> hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
>>>>>>> Jul  8
>>>>>>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New
>>>>> Revision:
>>>>>>> 961684
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptions
>>>>> states:
>>>>>>> Widget
>>>>>>>>> boundary
>>>>>>>>>>> comments are enabled by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>> widgetVerbose true
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the context
>>>>>>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> widget.verbose=true in
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties.
>>>>>>>>>>> And not let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context override
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8
>>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6
>>>>> +21,7 @@
>>>>>>>>> package
>>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>> java.io.Serializable;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>> java.util.Map;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +import
>>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7
>>>>> +111,7
>>>>>>> @@
>>>>>>>>> public class
>>>>>>>>>>> ModelWidget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implements Seri
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      public
>>>>>>>>> static
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
>>>>>>>>> extends
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Object>
>>>>> context) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "widget.verbose"));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      if
>>>>>>>>>>> (context != null)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      if
>>>>>>>>>>> (result == false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> &&   context
>>>>> !=
>>>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>      String str =
>>>>>>>>> (String)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>      if (str !=
>>>>>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>      result =
>>>>>>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter:
>>>>> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter:
>>>>> http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>>>> services for
>>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>> services
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
>>>>> services for
>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

[Adam Heath-2]

BJ Freeman wrote:
> I would like to see one place that enables them all
> but if that is not enabled then web.xml would.
> with as many components(over 30) I have I would like the all function.

I haven't looked at at any of the code, but what you guys want here is
boolean logic with tri-states.

if web.xml doesn't have the setting, use the global value.
if there is no global value, then default to false.

So you would remove all these settings from all components, then they
would all use the value of the global setting.

But if a pariticular web.xml has the value set, then it would become
disconnected from the global setting.

[Adrian Crum]

Hans,

My behavior is not the issue. You made a change that wasn't necessary. I
have tried to explain that to you, but you refuse to listen. Instead,
you issue threats and insults.

The context has nothing to do with the problem you encountered. It was a
configuration error in your local copy - you have admitted that.

Please revert your changes, and then we can discuss the idea of changing
the settings in the Example component.

-Adrian

On 7/9/2010 12:10 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> I am sorry Adrian,
>
> this is a perfect example of your behavior.
> This was a request in 2007. introducing widget comments, an excellent
> request. How can it be, you added this context stuff on may 20 2010?
> Even on the original request people do not want the web.xml
> configuration.
>
> Whatever it is:
> if widget.properties widgetverbose = true  i want to see widgets
> comments enabled everywhere. When false i can accept a compromise it can
> be overridden by web.xml.
>
> However you are not in for compromises so i want to have this override
> taken out completely, I still did not hear a business benefit for it it
> it makes the system complicated for apparently no reason.
>
> Regards.
> Hans
>
>
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:46 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> Hans,
>>
>> It would be preferable if you would research this information for yourself, but I am willing to oblige:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1318
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 11:33 PM
>>> Adrian,
>>>
>>> can you please give us the business reason why you want the
>>> widget
>>> properties setting via widgets.properties and web.xml as
>>> you implemented
>>> it?
>>>
>>> i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of
>>> view. The
>>> disadvantages I already gave you.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all
>>> along.
>>>>
>>>> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new
>>> project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the
>>> Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in
>>> the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the
>>> settings in Hans' local copy.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example
>>> component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple
>>> the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
>>>>
>>>> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I
>>> believe generates new components) has widget comments turned
>>> off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
>>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:52 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because you are fine with how it works
>>> doesn't mean
>>>>> others are fine with it, which is usually the
>>> reason a
>>>>> discussion starts and discovering such
>>> differences and
>>>>> exploring possible resolutions is the point of
>>> discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also
>>> noticed that
>>>>> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on
>>> by default
>>>>> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think
>>> that the
>>>>> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In
>>> fact, I think
>>>>> how it worked before the round of changes to this
>>> that were
>>>>> done before the changes Hans made was the way to
>>> go, ie:
>>>>> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
>>>>> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments
>>> on) with a
>>>>> configuration option to make it more
>>> production-friendly
>>>>> (demarcation comments off).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are missing the point - there was no
>>> issue. The
>>>>> code worked fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct
>>> behavior as
>>>>> designed was detailed in my first reply. If
>>> anyone needs
>>>>> further information they can check the commit
>>> logs and the
>>>>> related Jira issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he
>>> didn't
>>>>> understand why it wasn't working the way it
>>> should. Instead
>>>>> of asking for help on the mailing list, he
>>> arbitrarily
>>>>> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the
>>> same thing
>>>>> there would be a similar reaction from the
>>> community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his
>>> local
>>>>> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a
>>> mistake in
>>>>> someone's local copy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Hans wants to change the design, then
>>> that's fine -
>>>>> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk
>>> is broken.
>>>>> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and
>>> asked him
>>>>> to unbreak it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is so hard to understand about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
>>>>>
>>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:32 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate to say it, but it seems like
>>> these messages
>>>>> from
>>>>>>> Hans are presenting the issue and
>>> attempting to
>>>>> initiate a
>>>>>>> discussion on the best way to go
>>> forward, and your
>>>>> messages
>>>>>>> are not discussing the issue and instead
>>> appealing
>>>>> to some
>>>>>>> sort of reason to not change how things
>>> are at
>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way
>>> cooperation, so
>>>>> who is it
>>>>>>> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was no need for a compromise
>>> because
>>>>> there was
>>>>>>> no problem to begin with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just admitted the problem you
>>> were
>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>> was due to a misconfiguration in your
>>> local copy.
>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> solution to that misconfiguration was to
>>> change
>>>>> the trunk.
>>>>>>> The trunk was not the problem - the
>>> problem was in
>>>>> your
>>>>>>> local copy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please
>>> un-break
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you revert your changes and
>>> properly
>>>>> configure your
>>>>>>> local copy, then everything will work as
>>> you
>>>>> expect it to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a
>>> community
>>>>> of peers
>>>>>>> and things will go smoother if you learn
>>> to follow
>>>>> advice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684
>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010,
>>> 8:33 PM
>>>>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what i proposed to you was a
>>> compromise.
>>>>> You seem
>>>>>>> to only
>>>>>>>>> accept your
>>>>>>>>> way, as happened many times in
>>> the past.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> therefore i am not in for
>>> compromises any
>>>>> more. I
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> like you to
>>>>>>>>> remove the context code which
>>> enables the
>>>>> override
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> web.xml. It
>>>>>>>>> makes the system unnecessarily
>>> complicated
>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> feature i
>>>>>>>>> see no use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also causes to prohibit
>>> widgets
>>>>> comments in the
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>> which should show comments by
>>> default to
>>>>> follow
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> principle to show
>>>>>>>>> all possibilities in the system
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00
>>> -0700, Adrian
>>>>> Crum
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's good that you took the
>>> time to
>>>>> understand
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What would be acceptable is
>>> to revert
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> changes you
>>>>>>>>> made so the original behavior is
>>> restored.
>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> first commit
>>>>>>>>> tried to fix something that
>>> wasn't broken,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> your second
>>>>>>>>> commit disables a demonstration
>>> of how the
>>>>> widget
>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>> can be controlled.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
>>> Bakker<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit:
>>> r961684
>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8,
>>> 2010, 7:35
>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok this is what
>>> happened:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from
>>> about 3-4
>>>>> weeks ago.
>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>>>> time ago i
>>>>>>>>>>> created a new
>>>>>>>>>>> component in hot deploy
>>> using the
>>>>> web.xml
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> the example
>>>>>>>>>>> component. I
>>>>>>>>>>> see the widget comments
>>> are not
>>>>> generated.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties and
>>>>>>>>>>> see the parameter is set
>>> to true.
>>>>> I used
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>> before and never
>>>>>>>>>>> had a problem. I see
>>> that in
>>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
>>>>>>>>>>> class the
>>>>>>>>>>> 'context stuff' is
>>> changing true
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I not really see the
>>> benefit of
>>>>> this code,
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> somebody want to
>>>>>>>>>>> change this setting by
>>> the
>>>>> context
>>>>>>> content?
>>>>>>>>> However, as
>>>>>>>>>>> long as the
>>>>>>>>>>> parameter in widget
>>> properties
>>>>> works, then
>>>>>>> i am
>>>>>>>>> fine. So i
>>>>>>>>>>> made the
>>>>>>>>>>> change that this
>>> parameter can
>>>>> only be
>>>>>>> overridden
>>>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>>>>>> widget comments
>>>>>>>>>>> are switched of.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I now see that the
>>> comments in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>> component are
>>>>>>>>>>> switched off in
>>>>>>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not
>>> understand
>>>>> this,
>>>>>>>>> especially the
>>>>>>>>>>> example component
>>>>>>>>>>> should show comments?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I avoid this confusion
>>> in the
>>>>> future I
>>>>>>> added a
>>>>>>>>> comment in
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties that
>>> only
>>>>> 'false' can
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> overridden and
>>>>>>>>>>> commented out
>>>>>>>>>>> the code in web.xml of
>>> the
>>>>> example
>>>>>>> component.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I expect this should be
>>> acceptable
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> everybody?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at
>>> 00:28 +1200,
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> Gray
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two points:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down,
>>> this is
>>>>> just a
>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look
>>> at the code
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>>> valid,
>>>>>>>>>>> getting mad and making
>>> threats is
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.  You're not
>>> the first
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> mention it
>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't know where this
>>> idea of a
>>>>> veto came
>>>>>>> from,
>>>>>>>>> it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> exist.  When
>>> required, the
>>>>> PMC as a
>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>> can make
>>>>>>>>>>> binding decisions but
>>> not
>>>>> individuals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at
>>> 12:17 AM,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please check the
>>> code
>>>>> before you
>>>>>>>>> comment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i changed it
>>> because the
>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> not shown
>>>>>>>>>>> by default anymore as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was originally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you go that
>>> far , i
>>>>> will go so
>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>> and will
>>>>>>>>>>> use my veto and revert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code that
>>> added this
>>>>> context
>>>>>>> stuff?
>>>>>>>>> 'true' in
>>>>>>>>>>> the properties file
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always
>>> show the
>>>>> widgets
>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>>>> irrespective of the
>>> context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no wonder there
>>> aren't
>>>>> any
>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>> changes in
>>>>>>>>>>> the last few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> months ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu,
>>> 2010-07-08 at
>>>>> 04:47
>>>>>>> -0700,
>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you
>>> should change
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> description, not
>>>>>>>>>>> the code. The intended
>>> behavior
>>>>> is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>> properties setting
>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>> default, it can
>>>>>>>>>>> be overridden in the
>>> web.xml file
>>>>>>>>> (application-wide
>>>>>>>>>>> setting), or in the
>>> context
>>>>>>> (screen-specific
>>>>>>>>> setting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu,
>>> 7/8/10,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From:
>>> Hans Bakker
>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:
>>> Re: svn
>>>>> commit:
>>>>>>>>> r961684 -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:
>>> Thursday,
>>>>> July 8,
>>>>>>> 2010,
>>>>>>>>> 3:13 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree
>>> with what
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> description of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code
>>> says at
>>>>> the top.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>> setting makes
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.verbose by
>>> default is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false
>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages
>>> are not
>>>>> shown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. i
>>> missed the
>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>> comments, which
>>>>>>>>>>> one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu,
>>> 2010-07-08
>>>>> at
>>>>>>> 21:54
>>>>>>>>> +1200, Scott
>>>>>>>>>>> Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>> context
>>>>> setting
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> override
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> widget.properties
>>>>> setting,
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>> only reason why we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>> context
>>>>> version of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> setting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Please respond
>>>>> to this
>>>>>>> one,
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> haven't responded to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>> discussion
>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> last commit
>>>>>>>>>>> yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>> 8/07/2010,
>>>>> at 9:49
>>>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Author:
>>>>> hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Date: Thu
>>>>>>> Jul  8
>>>>>>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> New
>>>>> Revision:
>>>>>>> 961684
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> descriptions
>>>>> states:
>>>>>>> Widget
>>>>>>>>> boundary
>>>>>>>>>>> comments are enabled by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>> widgetVerbose true
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the context
>>>>>>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> widget.verbose=true in
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties.
>>>>>>>>>>> And not let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
>>> override
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> +++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu
>>> Jul  8
>>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> @@ -21,6
>>>>> +21,7 @@
>>>>>>>>> package
>>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>>>> java.io.Serializable;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>> java.util.Map;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> +import
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> @@ -110,7
>>>>> +111,7
>>>>>>> @@
>>>>>>>>> public class
>>>>>>>>>>> ModelWidget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> implements Seri
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      */
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     public
>>>>>>>>> static
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
>>>>>>>>> extends
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Object>
>>>>> context) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>> =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "widget.verbose"));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     if
>>>>>>>>>>> (context != null)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     if
>>>>>>>>>>> (result == false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> &&  context
>>>>> !=
>>>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>     String str =
>>>>>>>>> (String)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>     if (str !=
>>>>>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>     result =
>>>>>>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
>>> twitter:
>>>>> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself
>>> on twitter:
>>>>> http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>>>> services for
>>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>> services
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>> Quality
>>>>> services for
>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
>>> services for
>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Adrian Crum]

On 7/9/2010 7:00 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> BJ Freeman wrote:
>> I would like to see one place that enables them all
>> but if that is not enabled then web.xml would.
>> with as many components(over 30) I have I would like the all function.
>
> I haven't looked at at any of the code, but what you guys want here is
> boolean logic with tri-states.
>
> if web.xml doesn't have the setting, use the global value.
> if there is no global value, then default to false.
>
> So you would remove all these settings from all components, then they
> would all use the value of the global setting.
>
> But if a pariticular web.xml has the value set, then it would become
> disconnected from the global setting.

That was the behavior before Hans changed it. Now local settings are
ignored if the global setting is true.

And it isn't tri-state - it's more like inheritance. The
widget.properties setting is the default. You can override that setting
in web.xml. On top of that you can override both of those settings with
a parameter or context variable.

This was discussed during the design phase. My original code just had
the widget.properties setting. Someone wanted to set it in web.xml.
Someone else wanted to set it in a parameter. The end result satisfied
everyone's needs.

-Adrian

[Adam Heath-2]

Adrian Crum wrote:

> On 7/9/2010 7:00 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>> I would like to see one place that enables them all
>>> but if that is not enabled then web.xml would.
>>> with as many components(over 30) I have I would like the all function.
>>
>> I haven't looked at at any of the code, but what you guys want here is
>> boolean logic with tri-states.
>>
>> if web.xml doesn't have the setting, use the global value.
>> if there is no global value, then default to false.
>>
>> So you would remove all these settings from all components, then they
>> would all use the value of the global setting.
>>
>> But if a pariticular web.xml has the value set, then it would become
>> disconnected from the global setting.
>
> That was the behavior before Hans changed it. Now local settings are
> ignored if the global setting is true.
>
> And it isn't tri-state - it's more like inheritance. The
> widget.properties setting is the default. You can override that setting
> in web.xml. On top of that you can override both of those settings with
> a parameter or context variable.

If that's the case, then the change should be reverted.

In such a tri-state system, either the global setting is a higher
priority, or the local setting is.  There is no way the global could
be higher in one situation, and the local higher in another.

Before this change, the local setting had priority.  After this
change(based on discussion I've seen here), a global setting has priority.

There is no particular reason to have one setting have more priority
than the other, so in those situations, the status quo should be
followed, which means don't change it.  So, the patch should be reverted.

Now, a could different separate discussions could be started, if: one,
this global/local setting doesn't follow the pattern in other parts of
ofbiz, or two, the system should be changed to allow global settings
to take priority.

ps: I'm just trying to restate what I have seen said in this thread,
in a way that everyone involved can understand and agree on.  I have
tried not to take any particular side(that sounds combative), or make
any kind of decision.

[Adrian Crum]

On 7/9/2010 8:32 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> On 7/9/2010 7:00 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>> I would like to see one place that enables them all
>>>> but if that is not enabled then web.xml would.
>>>> with as many components(over 30) I have I would like the all function.
>>>
>>> I haven't looked at at any of the code, but what you guys want here is
>>> boolean logic with tri-states.
>>>
>>> if web.xml doesn't have the setting, use the global value.
>>> if there is no global value, then default to false.
>>>
>>> So you would remove all these settings from all components, then they
>>> would all use the value of the global setting.
>>>
>>> But if a pariticular web.xml has the value set, then it would become
>>> disconnected from the global setting.
>>
>> That was the behavior before Hans changed it. Now local settings are
>> ignored if the global setting is true.
>>
>> And it isn't tri-state - it's more like inheritance. The
>> widget.properties setting is the default. You can override that setting
>> in web.xml. On top of that you can override both of those settings with
>> a parameter or context variable.
>
> If that's the case, then the change should be reverted.
>
> In such a tri-state system, either the global setting is a higher
> priority, or the local setting is.  There is no way the global could
> be higher in one situation, and the local higher in another.
>
> Before this change, the local setting had priority.  After this
> change(based on discussion I've seen here), a global setting has priority.

That was the problem Hans encountered. His custom application's web.xml
file overrode the default setting, but he wasn't aware that the setting
existed.

> There is no particular reason to have one setting have more priority
> than the other, so in those situations, the status quo should be
> followed, which means don't change it.  So, the patch should be reverted.
>
> Now, a could different separate discussions could be started, if: one,
> this global/local setting doesn't follow the pattern in other parts of
> ofbiz, or two, the system should be changed to allow global settings
> to take priority.

That discussion has occurred in the past and it certainly could be
discussed again. The original code had the HTML comments default to off
globally, and somewhere along the line the setting was changed to on.
The Example component always had the comments disabled - so its behavior
didn't differ from the other components until the global setting was
changed.

The Example component could be changed to have the HTML comments
enabled, and maybe have them disabled in one screen with an explanatory
comment that it is set that way to demonstrate the feature.

> ps: I'm just trying to restate what I have seen said in this thread,
> in a way that everyone involved can understand and agree on.  I have
> tried not to take any particular side(that sounds combative), or make
> any kind of decision.

It's unfortunate that anyone in the community should feel the need to
avoid taking sides. From my perspective, there are no "sides" in this
discussion. I am simply trying to educate a fellow committer on the
design of a piece of code I authored. In addition, I'm also trying to
reinforce the concept of "understand the code before you change it."

-Adrian

[Adam Heath-2]

Adrian Crum wrote:
> It's unfortunate that anyone in the community should feel the need to
> avoid taking sides. From my perspective, there are no "sides" in this
> discussion. I am simply trying to educate a fellow committer on the
> design of a piece of code I authored. In addition, I'm also trying to
> reinforce the concept of "understand the code before you change it."

<whisper>automated test cases</whisper>

Not only do tests help to ensure that changes don't break anything,
but they also serve as documentation in how to do things.

[hans_bakker]

Adrian.

This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.

so no use sending you more arguments.

I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.

Regards,
Hans

On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 07:19 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Hans,
>
> My behavior is not the issue. You made a change that wasn't necessary. I
> have tried to explain that to you, but you refuse to listen. Instead,
> you issue threats and insults.
>
> The context has nothing to do with the problem you encountered. It was a
> configuration error in your local copy - you have admitted that.
>
> Please revert your changes, and then we can discuss the idea of changing
> the settings in the Example component.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 7/9/2010 12:10 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> > I am sorry Adrian,
> >
> > this is a perfect example of your behavior.
> > This was a request in 2007. introducing widget comments, an excellent
> > request. How can it be, you added this context stuff on may 20 2010?
> > Even on the original request people do not want the web.xml
> > configuration.
> >
> > Whatever it is:
> > if widget.properties widgetverbose = true  i want to see widgets
> > comments enabled everywhere. When false i can accept a compromise it can
> > be overridden by web.xml.
> >
> > However you are not in for compromises so i want to have this override
> > taken out completely, I still did not hear a business benefit for it it
> > it makes the system complicated for apparently no reason.
> >
> > Regards.
> > Hans
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:46 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> Hans,
> >>
> >> It would be preferable if you would research this information for yourself, but I am willing to oblige:
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1318
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
> >>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>> To: [hidden email]
> >>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 11:33 PM
> >>> Adrian,
> >>>
> >>> can you please give us the business reason why you want the
> >>> widget
> >>> properties setting via widgets.properties and web.xml as
> >>> you implemented
> >>> it?
> >>>
> >>> i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of
> >>> view. The
> >>> disadvantages I already gave you.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hans
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all
> >>> along.
> >>>>
> >>>> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new
> >>> project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the
> >>> Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in
> >>> the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the
> >>> settings in Hans' local copy.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example
> >>> component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple
> >>> the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
> >>>>
> >>>> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I
> >>> believe generates new components) has widget comments turned
> >>> off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Adrian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
> >>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:52 PM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just because you are fine with how it works
> >>> doesn't mean
> >>>>> others are fine with it, which is usually the
> >>> reason a
> >>>>> discussion starts and discovering such
> >>> differences and
> >>>>> exploring possible resolutions is the point of
> >>> discussions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also
> >>> noticed that
> >>>>> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on
> >>> by default
> >>>>> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think
> >>> that the
> >>>>> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In
> >>> fact, I think
> >>>>> how it worked before the round of changes to this
> >>> that were
> >>>>> done before the changes Hans made was the way to
> >>> go, ie:
> >>>>> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
> >>>>> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments
> >>> on) with a
> >>>>> configuration option to make it more
> >>> production-friendly
> >>>>> (demarcation comments off).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -David
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are missing the point - there was no
> >>> issue. The
> >>>>> code worked fine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct
> >>> behavior as
> >>>>> designed was detailed in my first reply. If
> >>> anyone needs
> >>>>> further information they can check the commit
> >>> logs and the
> >>>>> related Jira issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he
> >>> didn't
> >>>>> understand why it wasn't working the way it
> >>> should. Instead
> >>>>> of asking for help on the mailing list, he
> >>> arbitrarily
> >>>>> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the
> >>> same thing
> >>>>> there would be a similar reaction from the
> >>> community.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his
> >>> local
> >>>>> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a
> >>> mistake in
> >>>>> someone's local copy?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If Hans wants to change the design, then
> >>> that's fine -
> >>>>> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk
> >>> is broken.
> >>>>> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and
> >>> asked him
> >>>>> to unbreak it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What is so hard to understand about that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
> >>>>>
> >>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:32 PM
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Adrian,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I hate to say it, but it seems like
> >>> these messages
> >>>>> from
> >>>>>>> Hans are presenting the issue and
> >>> attempting to
> >>>>> initiate a
> >>>>>>> discussion on the best way to go
> >>> forward, and your
> >>>>> messages
> >>>>>>> are not discussing the issue and instead
> >>> appealing
> >>>>> to some
> >>>>>>> sort of reason to not change how things
> >>> are at
> >>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way
> >>> cooperation, so
> >>>>> who is it
> >>>>>>> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -David
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hans,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There was no need for a compromise
> >>> because
> >>>>> there was
> >>>>>>> no problem to begin with.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You just admitted the problem you
> >>> were
> >>>>> experiencing
> >>>>>>> was due to a misconfiguration in your
> >>> local copy.
> >>>>> Your
> >>>>>>> solution to that misconfiguration was to
> >>> change
> >>>>> the trunk.
> >>>>>>> The trunk was not the problem - the
> >>> problem was in
> >>>>> your
> >>>>>>> local copy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please
> >>> un-break
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you revert your changes and
> >>> properly
> >>>>> configure your
> >>>>>>> local copy, then everything will work as
> >>> you
> >>>>> expect it to.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a
> >>> community
> >>>>> of peers
> >>>>>>> and things will go smoother if you learn
> >>> to follow
> >>>>> advice.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
> >>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684
> >>> -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010,
> >>> 8:33 PM
> >>>>>>>>> Adrian,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> what i proposed to you was a
> >>> compromise.
> >>>>> You seem
> >>>>>>> to only
> >>>>>>>>> accept your
> >>>>>>>>> way, as happened many times in
> >>> the past.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> therefore i am not in for
> >>> compromises any
> >>>>> more. I
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>> like you to
> >>>>>>>>> remove the context code which
> >>> enables the
> >>>>> override
> >>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>>>> web.xml. It
> >>>>>>>>> makes the system unnecessarily
> >>> complicated
> >>>>> for a
> >>>>>>> feature i
> >>>>>>>>> see no use.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It also causes to prohibit
> >>> widgets
> >>>>> comments in the
> >>>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>>>> which should show comments by
> >>> default to
> >>>>> follow
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> principle to show
> >>>>>>>>> all possibilities in the system
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00
> >>> -0700, Adrian
> >>>>> Crum
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hans,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's good that you took the
> >>> time to
> >>>>> understand
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What would be acceptable is
> >>> to revert
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> changes you
> >>>>>>>>> made so the original behavior is
> >>> restored.
> >>>>> Your
> >>>>>>> first commit
> >>>>>>>>> tried to fix something that
> >>> wasn't broken,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> your second
> >>>>>>>>> commit disables a demonstration
> >>> of how the
> >>>>> widget
> >>>>>>> comments
> >>>>>>>>> can be controlled.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
> >>> Bakker<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit:
> >>> r961684
> >>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, July 8,
> >>> 2010, 7:35
> >>>>> PM
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ok this is what
> >>> happened:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from
> >>> about 3-4
> >>>>> weeks ago.
> >>>>>>> Some
> >>>>>>>>> time ago i
> >>>>>>>>>>> created a new
> >>>>>>>>>>> component in hot deploy
> >>> using the
> >>>>> web.xml
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>> the example
> >>>>>>>>>>> component. I
> >>>>>>>>>>> see the widget comments
> >>> are not
> >>>>> generated.
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties and
> >>>>>>>>>>> see the parameter is set
> >>> to true.
> >>>>> I used
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> feature
> >>>>>>>>>>> before and never
> >>>>>>>>>>> had a problem. I see
> >>> that in
> >>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> >>>>>>>>>>> class the
> >>>>>>>>>>> 'context stuff' is
> >>> changing true
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> false.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I not really see the
> >>> benefit of
> >>>>> this code,
> >>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>> somebody want to
> >>>>>>>>>>> change this setting by
> >>> the
> >>>>> context
> >>>>>>> content?
> >>>>>>>>> However, as
> >>>>>>>>>>> long as the
> >>>>>>>>>>> parameter in widget
> >>> properties
> >>>>> works, then
> >>>>>>> i am
> >>>>>>>>> fine. So i
> >>>>>>>>>>> made the
> >>>>>>>>>>> change that this
> >>> parameter can
> >>>>> only be
> >>>>>>> overridden
> >>>>>>>>> if the
> >>>>>>>>>>> widget comments
> >>>>>>>>>>> are switched of.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I now see that the
> >>> comments in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>>> component are
> >>>>>>>>>>> switched off in
> >>>>>>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not
> >>> understand
> >>>>> this,
> >>>>>>>>> especially the
> >>>>>>>>>>> example component
> >>>>>>>>>>> should show comments?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I avoid this confusion
> >>> in the
> >>>>> future I
> >>>>>>> added a
> >>>>>>>>> comment in
> >>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties that
> >>> only
> >>>>> 'false' can
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>> overridden and
> >>>>>>>>>>> commented out
> >>>>>>>>>>> the code in web.xml of
> >>> the
> >>>>> example
> >>>>>>> component.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I expect this should be
> >>> acceptable
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> everybody?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at
> >>> 00:28 +1200,
> >>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>> Gray
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Two points:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down,
> >>> this is
> >>>>> just a
> >>>>>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look
> >>> at the code
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>> perfectly
> >>>>>>>>> valid,
> >>>>>>>>>>> getting mad and making
> >>> threats is
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.  You're not
> >>> the first
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> mention it
> >>>>>>>>> but I
> >>>>>>>>>>> don't know where this
> >>> idea of a
> >>>>> veto came
> >>>>>>> from,
> >>>>>>>>> it doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> exist.  When
> >>> required, the
> >>>>> PMC as a
> >>>>>>> group
> >>>>>>>>> can make
> >>>>>>>>>>> binding decisions but
> >>> not
> >>>>> individuals.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at
> >>> 12:17 AM,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>> Bakker
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> please check the
> >>> code
> >>>>> before you
> >>>>>>>>> comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> i changed it
> >>> because the
> >>>>> comments
> >>>>>>> were
> >>>>>>>>> not shown
> >>>>>>>>>>> by default anymore as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was originally.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you go that
> >>> far , i
> >>>>> will go so
> >>>>>>> far
> >>>>>>>>> and will
> >>>>>>>>>>> use my veto and revert
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the code that
> >>> added this
> >>>>> context
> >>>>>>> stuff?
> >>>>>>>>> 'true' in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the properties file
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should always
> >>> show the
> >>>>> widgets
> >>>>>>>>> comments
> >>>>>>>>>>> irrespective of the
> >>> context.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> no wonder there
> >>> aren't
> >>>>> any
> >>>>>>> significant
> >>>>>>>>> changes in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the last few
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> months ....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu,
> >>> 2010-07-08 at
> >>>>> 04:47
> >>>>>>> -0700,
> >>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you
> >>> should change
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> description, not
> >>>>>>>>>>> the code. The intended
> >>> behavior
> >>>>> is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>> properties setting
> >>>>> is the
> >>>>>>>>> default, it can
> >>>>>>>>>>> be overridden in the
> >>> web.xml file
> >>>>>>>>> (application-wide
> >>>>>>>>>>> setting), or in the
> >>> context
> >>>>>>> (screen-specific
> >>>>>>>>> setting).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu,
> >>> 7/8/10,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>> Bakker
> >>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From:
> >>> Hans Bakker
> >>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject:
> >>> Re: svn
> >>>>> commit:
> >>>>>>>>> r961684 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:
> >>> Thursday,
> >>>>> July 8,
> >>>>>>> 2010,
> >>>>>>>>> 3:13 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree
> >>> with what
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> description of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code
> >>> says at
> >>>>> the top.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>> setting makes
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> widget.verbose by
> >>> default is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false
> >>> and the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages
> >>> are not
> >>>>> shown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. i
> >>> missed the
> >>>>> last
> >>>>>>>>> comments, which
> >>>>>>>>>>> one?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu,
> >>> 2010-07-08
> >>>>> at
> >>>>>>> 21:54
> >>>>>>>>> +1200, Scott
> >>>>>>>>>>> Gray wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>> context
> >>>>> setting
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>> override
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> widget.properties
> >>>>> setting,
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> is the
> >>>>>>>>>>> only reason why we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
> >>> context
> >>>>> version of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> setting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Please respond
> >>>>> to this
> >>>>>>> one,
> >>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>> haven't responded to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>> discussion
> >>>>> regarding
> >>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>> last commit
> >>>>>>>>>>> yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> HotWax Media
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
> >>> 8/07/2010,
> >>>>> at 9:49
> >>>>>>> PM,
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Author:
> >>>>> hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Date: Thu
> >>>>>>> Jul  8
> >>>>>>>>> 09:49:57
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> New
> >>>>> Revision:
> >>>>>>> 961684
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Log:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> >>>>> as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> descriptions
> >>>>> states:
> >>>>>>> Widget
> >>>>>>>>> boundary
> >>>>>>>>>>> comments are enabled by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> >>>>> widgetVerbose true
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> the context
> >>>>>>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> widget.verbose=true in
> >>>>>>>>> widget.properties.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And not let the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
> >>> override
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> widget.properties
> >>>>>>>>>>> setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ==============================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> (original)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> +++
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu
> >>> Jul  8
> >>>>> 09:49:57
> >>>>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> @@ -21,6
> >>>>> +21,7 @@
> >>>>>>>>> package
> >>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>>>> java.io.Serializable;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>> java.util.Map;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> +import
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> @@ -110,7
> >>>>> +111,7
> >>>>>>> @@
> >>>>>>>>> public class
> >>>>>>>>>>> ModelWidget
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> implements Seri
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>      */
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     public
> >>>>>>>>> static
> >>>>>>>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> >>>>>>>>> extends
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Object>
> >>>>> context) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
> >>> =
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> "widget.verbose"));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>     if
> >>>>>>>>>>> (context != null)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> +
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>     if
> >>>>>>>>>>> (result == false
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> &&  context
> >>>>> !=
> >>>>>>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>     String str =
> >>>>>>>>> (String)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>     if (str !=
> >>>>>>>>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>     result =
> >>>>>>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> >>> twitter:
> >>>>> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself
> >>> on twitter:
> >>>>> http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>>>>>> Quality
> >>>>>>>>> services for
> >>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on
> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>>>> Quality
> >>>>>>> services
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>> Quality
> >>>>> services for
> >>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> >>> services for
> >>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >

--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[Adam Heath-2]

Hans Bakker wrote:
> Adrian.
>
> This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.

This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
to say.

(this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).

> so no use sending you more arguments.

That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?

> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.

That's awfully combative.

[hans_bakker]

Adam,

if this would be the first time i talk to Adrian, I agree you were
right, however this discussion has a long history with other
discussions, i tried your approach many times, but i cannot get Adrian
to answer simple questions on the business level. Technically no
problem, very good to have Adrian on the team.

An example:
Provide a valid business reason why the system would not work with my
change. (he says i 'break' it, it is however working fin here.)

So to repeat again what i changed: The properties file can only be
overridden in the case when the widget comments are switched off. So
specific web applications can be switched on if required in the web.xml

Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
why we should have that.

I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
point of the original change.

Regards,
Hans

On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:

> Hans Bakker wrote:
> > Adrian.
> >
> > This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
>
> This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
> you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
> understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
> was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> to say.
>
> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>
> > so no use sending you more arguments.
>
> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>
> > I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>
> That's awfully combative.

--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[Scott Gray-2]

On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
> example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
> why we should have that.

Let's be clear, there was no problem with the way it worked before, changing the setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.

Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.

Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.

>
> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> point of the original change.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>> Hans Bakker wrote:
>>> Adrian.
>>>
>>> This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
>>
>> This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
>> you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
>> understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
>> was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>> to say.
>>
>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>
>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>
>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>
>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>
>> That's awfully combative.
>
> --
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

[hans_bakker]

You still not give me a business reason why the change i did was harmful
or break anything.

On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
> > Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
> > example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
> > why we should have that.
>
> Let's be clear, there was no problem with the way it worked before, changing the setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>
> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>
> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>
> >
> > I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> > point of the original change.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> >
> > On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >> Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>> Adrian.
> >>>
> >>> This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
> >>
> >> This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
> >> you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
> >> understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
> >> was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >> to say.
> >>
> >> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>
> >>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>
> >> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>
> >>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>
> >> That's awfully combative.
> >
> > --
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >
>

--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[Scott Gray-2]

I don't see a huge problem with your change but I have to admit that I don't remember what your change actually does.  There is a reason why I don't remember though, because it isn't intuitive.

With the way things were before, it was easy to understand:
context overrides web.xml overrides widget.properties

See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.

You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> You still not give me a business reason why the change i did was harmful
> or break anything.
>
> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
>>> example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
>>> why we should have that.
>>
>> Let's be clear, there was no problem with the way it worked before, changing the setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>
>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>
>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>
>>>
>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>> point of the original change.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>> Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>> Adrian.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
>>>>
>>>> This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
>>>> you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
>>>> understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
>>>> was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>> to say.
>>>>
>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>
>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>
>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>
>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>
>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

[hans_bakker]

Tell me when you would ever want to override a widget.verbose=true in
widget.properties?

For a business user or a user hosting the application it is important
that when he sets it to true, he wants to see the comments irrespective
of web.xml buried deep down in the system

What is more important?
1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
file to true?

business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
technical reasons

Regards,
Hans


On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:

> I don't see a huge problem with your change but I have to admit that I don't remember what your change actually does.  There is a reason why I don't remember though, because it isn't intuitive.
>
> With the way things were before, it was easy to understand:
> context overrides web.xml overrides widget.properties
>
> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>
> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
> > You still not give me a business reason why the change i did was harmful
> > or break anything.
> >
> > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
> >>> example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
> >>> why we should have that.
> >>
> >> Let's be clear, there was no problem with the way it worked before, changing the setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> >> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> >>
> >> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> >>
> >> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> >>> point of the original change.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hans
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>> Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>> Adrian.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
> >>>> you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
> >>>> understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
> >>>> was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >>>> to say.
> >>>>
> >>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>>>
> >>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>>>
> >>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's awfully combative.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >
>

--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[Scott Gray-2]

If the setting is commented out in all OOTB web.xml files then a non-techincal user will never be bothered by it, case closed.

As for why you would ever want to override widget.verbose=true:
Let's say you have a staging instance deployed on a test server and active development and debugging is still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.

How does that sound?

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Tell me when you would ever want to override a widget.verbose=true in
> widget.properties?
>
> For a business user or a user hosting the application it is important
> that when he sets it to true, he wants to see the comments irrespective
> of web.xml buried deep down in the system
>
> What is more important?
> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
> file to true?
>
> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
> technical reasons
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>> I don't see a huge problem with your change but I have to admit that I don't remember what your change actually does.  There is a reason why I don't remember though, because it isn't intuitive.
>>
>> With the way things were before, it was easy to understand:
>> context overrides web.xml overrides widget.properties
>>
>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>
>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> You still not give me a business reason why the change i did was harmful
>>> or break anything.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
>>>>> example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
>>>>> why we should have that.
>>>>
>>>> Let's be clear, there was no problem with the way it worked before, changing the setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>
>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>
>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>> Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>> Adrian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
>>>>>> you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
>>>>>> understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
>>>>>> was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

[hans_bakker]

Sorry Scott, you simply trying to find a reason you just made up now,
Business reasons still more important , is my opinion.

thanks for your reply,

Regards,
Hans

I is extremely far fledged and still think the business user take
priority here.

On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 19:32 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:

> If the setting is commented out in all OOTB web.xml files then a non-techincal user will never be bothered by it, case closed.
>
> As for why you would ever want to override widget.verbose=true:
> Let's say you have a staging instance deployed on a test server and active development and debugging is still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
> > Tell me when you would ever want to override a widget.verbose=true in
> > widget.properties?
> >
> > For a business user or a user hosting the application it is important
> > that when he sets it to true, he wants to see the comments irrespective
> > of web.xml buried deep down in the system
> >
> > What is more important?
> > 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
> > 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
> > displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
> > file to true?
> >
> > business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
> > technical reasons
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >> I don't see a huge problem with your change but I have to admit that I don't remember what your change actually does.  There is a reason why I don't remember though, because it isn't intuitive.
> >>
> >> With the way things were before, it was easy to understand:
> >> context overrides web.xml overrides widget.properties
> >>
> >> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
> >>
> >> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>
> >>> You still not give me a business reason why the change i did was harmful
> >>> or break anything.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
> >>>>> example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
> >>>>> why we should have that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's be clear, there was no problem with the way it worked before, changing the setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> >>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> >>>>
> >>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> >>>>> point of the original change.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>>>> Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>>> Adrian.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
> >>>>>> you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
> >>>>>> understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
> >>>>>> was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >>>>>> to say.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's awfully combative.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >
>

--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[Scott Gray-2]

Of course I just made it up, that doesn't make it an invalid scenario though.

Like I said, your "business" problem can easily be solved without the changes you made.  Simply revert your commit and instead comment out the settings in the web.xml files and commit that.  Problem solved, everybody is happy.

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Sorry Scott, you simply trying to find a reason you just made up now,
> Business reasons still more important , is my opinion.
>
> thanks for your reply,
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> I is extremely far fledged and still think the business user take
> priority here.
>
> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 19:32 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>> If the setting is commented out in all OOTB web.xml files then a non-techincal user will never be bothered by it, case closed.
>>
>> As for why you would ever want to override widget.verbose=true:
>> Let's say you have a staging instance deployed on a test server and active development and debugging is still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>
>> How does that sound?
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> Tell me when you would ever want to override a widget.verbose=true in
>>> widget.properties?
>>>
>>> For a business user or a user hosting the application it is important
>>> that when he sets it to true, he wants to see the comments irrespective
>>> of web.xml buried deep down in the system
>>>
>>> What is more important?
>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>> file to true?
>>>
>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>> technical reasons
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> I don't see a huge problem with your change but I have to admit that I don't remember what your change actually does.  There is a reason why I don't remember though, because it isn't intuitive.
>>>>
>>>> With the way things were before, it was easy to understand:
>>>> context overrides web.xml overrides widget.properties
>>>>
>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You still not give me a business reason why the change i did was harmful
>>>>> or break anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
>>>>>>> example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
>>>>>>> why we should have that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's be clear, there was no problem with the way it worked before, changing the setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Adrian.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
>>>>>>>> you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
>>>>>>>> understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
>>>>>>>> was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

[hans_bakker]

can only repeat what i said: I think he the business reasons should take
priority and leave the system as it is now.

Regards,
Hans



On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 20:07 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:

> Of course I just made it up, that doesn't make it an invalid scenario though.
>
> Like I said, your "business" problem can easily be solved without the changes you made.  Simply revert your commit and instead comment out the settings in the web.xml files and commit that.  Problem solved, everybody is happy.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
> > Sorry Scott, you simply trying to find a reason you just made up now,
> > Business reasons still more important , is my opinion.
> >
> > thanks for your reply,
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> >
> > I is extremely far fledged and still think the business user take
> > priority here.
> >
> > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 19:32 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >> If the setting is commented out in all OOTB web.xml files then a non-techincal user will never be bothered by it, case closed.
> >>
> >> As for why you would ever want to override widget.verbose=true:
> >> Let's say you have a staging instance deployed on a test server and active development and debugging is still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
> >> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
> >>
> >> How does that sound?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tell me when you would ever want to override a widget.verbose=true in
> >>> widget.properties?
> >>>
> >>> For a business user or a user hosting the application it is important
> >>> that when he sets it to true, he wants to see the comments irrespective
> >>> of web.xml buried deep down in the system
> >>>
> >>> What is more important?
> >>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
> >>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
> >>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
> >>> file to true?
> >>>
> >>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
> >>> technical reasons
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hans
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>> I don't see a huge problem with your change but I have to admit that I don't remember what your change actually does.  There is a reason why I don't remember though, because it isn't intuitive.
> >>>>
> >>>> With the way things were before, it was easy to understand:
> >>>> context overrides web.xml overrides widget.properties
> >>>>
> >>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Scott
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You still not give me a business reason why the change i did was harmful
> >>>>> or break anything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
> >>>>>>> example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
> >>>>>>> why we should have that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's be clear, there was no problem with the way it worked before, changing the setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> >>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> >>>>>>> point of the original change.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Adrian.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is not helpful.  If you believe someone hasn't understood what
> >>>>>>>> you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
> >>>>>>>> understand.  You should re-explain it in a different way.  If there
> >>>>>>>> was understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >>>>>>>> to say.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >
>

--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.