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. >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
