Since you no longer want to discuss the matter I assume that you are okay for the code to be changed?
Thanks Scott On 10/07/2010, at 9:21 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > 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. >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
