Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Locked
123
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Voting on code changes was svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: Voting on code changes was svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
123
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
 
|
You are yet to explain why simply commenting out the web app settings in the trunk will not solve your problem. If that is done then the "business" reasons will take priority by default.
Regards Scott On 10/07/2010, at 8:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > 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. > |
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
That's why we comment it out, the only reason you were affected was because it wasn't commented out. The business user never even has to know that it exists.
If your argument now is that at some point in the future a committer will accidentally uncomment the setting, then I think you are clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution. Regards Scott On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > I still think the problem for the business user is still much higher > then the not "intuitive" problem for the experienced technical user. A > parameter in web.xml is easily "forgotten" which actually started this > whole discussion. > > Regards, > Hans > > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 20:42 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >> You are yet to explain why simply commenting out the web app settings in the trunk will not solve your problem. If that is done then the "business" reasons will take priority by default. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 10/07/2010, at 8:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> > > -- > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. > |
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Since you no longer want to discuss the matter I assume that you are okay for the code to be changed?
Thanks Scott On 10/07/2010, at 9:21 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > You never do give up, do you. > i think the current system is a nice workable solution which does not > need to be changed. That is my last comment. > > Regards, > Hans > > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >> That's why we comment it out, the only reason you were affected was because it wasn't commented out. The business user never even has to know that it exists. >> >> If your argument now is that at some point in the future a committer will accidentally uncomment the setting, then I think you are clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> >>> I still think the problem for the business user is still much higher >>> then the not "intuitive" problem for the experienced technical user. A >>> parameter in web.xml is easily "forgotten" which actually started this >>> whole discussion. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hans >>> >>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 20:42 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >>>> You are yet to explain why simply commenting out the web app settings in the trunk will not solve your problem. If that is done then the "business" reasons will take priority by default. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. > |
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Relax, I have no intention of reverting your commit without you first agreeing to it.
I would only attempt to revert something if I thought it was grossly inappropriate for it to be in the repository (such as link to a personal twitter account). This is just a small issue that for some strange reason requires 50+ emails to resolve. Regards Scott On 10/07/2010, at 9:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > please read the message i just sent you I mean the current system today. > > do not start a revert war, i will follow no problem. > > Regards, > Hans > > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:30 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >> Since you no longer want to discuss the matter I assume that you are okay for the code to be changed? >> >> Thanks >> Scott >> >> On 10/07/2010, at 9:21 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> >>> You never do give up, do you. >>> i think the current system is a nice workable solution which does not >>> need to be changed. That is my last comment. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hans >>> >>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >>>> That's why we comment it out, the only reason you were affected was because it wasn't commented out. The business user never even has to know that it exists. >>>> >>>> If your argument now is that at some point in the future a committer will accidentally uncomment the setting, then I think you are clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>> >>>>> I still think the problem for the business user is still much higher >>>>> then the not "intuitive" problem for the experienced technical user. A >>>>> parameter in web.xml is easily "forgotten" which actually started this >>>>> whole discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Hans >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 20:42 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>> You are yet to explain why simply commenting out the web app settings in the trunk will not solve your problem. If that is done then the "business" reasons will take priority by default. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. > |
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
That's a lot of changes for something that wasn't broken to begin with. I would rather just give up than see even more complications added to something that was originally simple. I can always just chalk this down to another instance where common sense didn't prevail.
I'm going to say it one last time though, the only change needed to prevent Hans or anyone else having problems was to comment out the web.xml settings, it is really that simple. Regards Scott On 10/07/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > Since no one wants to step back, me probably need a compromise. > What if: > 1) we treat widget.verbose as in Hans' last commit: if set, it will override all the other settings (context and web.xml) > 2) we add a new parameter "widget.verbose.default" that is treated as it was previously: use context then use web.xml then use widget.verbose.default > 3) in OFBiz trunk, by default #1 is commented out and #2 is set to true > 4) as it was suggested, we remove the setting in web.xml from the template and example applications > > Kind regards, > > Jacopo > > On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> Relax, I have no intention of reverting your commit without you first agreeing to it. >> >> I would only attempt to revert something if I thought it was grossly inappropriate for it to be in the repository (such as link to a personal twitter account). This is just a small issue that for some strange reason requires 50+ emails to resolve. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 10/07/2010, at 9:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> >>> please read the message i just sent you I mean the current system today. >>> >>> do not start a revert war, i will follow no problem. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hans >>> >>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:30 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >>>> Since you no longer want to discuss the matter I assume that you are okay for the code to be changed? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 9:21 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>> >>>>> You never do give up, do you. >>>>> i think the current system is a nice workable solution which does not >>>>> need to be changed. That is my last comment. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Hans >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>> That's why we comment it out, the only reason you were affected was because it wasn't commented out. The business user never even has to know that it exists. >>>>>> >>>>>> If your argument now is that at some point in the future a committer will accidentally uncomment the setting, then I think you are clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I still think the problem for the business user is still much higher >>>>>>> then the not "intuitive" problem for the experienced technical user. A >>>>>>> parameter in web.xml is easily "forgotten" which actually started this >>>>>>> whole discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Hans >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 20:42 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>>> You are yet to explain why simply commenting out the web app settings in the trunk will not solve your problem. If that is done then the "business" reasons will take priority by default. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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. >>> >> > |
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Voting on code changes was svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Re: Voting on code changes was svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
Administrator
|
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
|
In reply to this post by hans_bakker
I hate to raise this issue from the dead, but I just want to say that I was just bitten by the exact scenario I described below.
I was testing out a csv export but the widget comments were coming through in it, so I thought "no problem I'll just add a screen action to set widgetVerbose to false". Didn't work, then I had to spend 5 minutes digging through the code to find out why and it turns out you can't set widgetVerbose to false at runtime if it is set to true in widet.properties and then I remembered this thread and cursed out loud. So I set it to false in widget.properties and restarted, which is a pain in the butt. Thanks Scott On 10/07/2010, at 9:21 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > You never do give up, do you. > i think the current system is a nice workable solution which does not > need to be changed. That is my last comment. > > Regards, > Hans > > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >> That's why we comment it out, the only reason you were affected was because it wasn't commented out. The business user never even has to know that it exists. >> >> If your argument now is that at some point in the future a committer will accidentally uncomment the setting, then I think you are clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> >>> I still think the problem for the business user is still much higher >>> then the not "intuitive" problem for the experienced technical user. A >>> parameter in web.xml is easily "forgotten" which actually started this >>> whole discussion. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hans >>> >>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 20:42 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >>>> You are yet to explain why simply commenting out the web app settings in the trunk will not solve your problem. If that is done then the "business" reasons will take priority by default. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. > |
Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/
|
Administrator
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |