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.
