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.
