Hello Michael, Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de> writes:
> I am still not sure why we need the new mechanism. > > And if we decide to use both, we should make sure that the old version > is the default at least for the lifecycle of one release with proper > an clear dopcumentation for users. > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > PS: I'm asking myself why some people have such a big problem > reverting their work if others object against it. If there was no > review/discussion/consensus for a new feature, it should simply not go > into the codebase and should at least be reverted if there are > objections. > > It's tiring to discuss this afterwards and if the people objecting are > not persistent enough, the code simply stays. I have personally no problem reverting things. If you look at the ‘git log’ you will see some recent reverts I have made. I just need to understand the actual objection before reverting [1]. Since your argument seems to be about the “impacts on users” an explanation regarding what you or others are actually achieving when patching the “framework/component-load.xml” and “applications/component-load.xml” would help me understand the issue, because I honestly do not see why the loading order/mechanism of “framework” or “applications” should not be considered an implementation detail. By the way to give more context on my perspective, the usage of <depends-on> instead of “component-load.xml” in the framework/applications directories is related to the implementation of the work described in a previous discussion [2] because it defines a location independent an extensible component loading order. HTH, [1] https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework/commit/eeabe69813a1d9f42911dec70a912574046ef49b [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c2612f1e296b6ea15872185871d3a9d83d6a4afc6d2a76f7a336a126%40%3Cdev.ofbiz.apache.org%3E -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
