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.
