Since no one wants to step back, me probably need a compromise. What if: 1) we treat widget.verbose as in Hans' last commit: if set, it will override all the other settings (context and web.xml) 2) we add a new parameter "widget.verbose.default" that is treated as it was previously: use context then use web.xml then use widget.verbose.default 3) in OFBiz trunk, by default #1 is commented out and #2 is set to true 4) as it was suggested, we remove the setting in web.xml from the template and example applications
Kind regards, Jacopo On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > Relax, I have no intention of reverting your commit without you first > agreeing to it. > > I would only attempt to revert something if I thought it was grossly > inappropriate for it to be in the repository (such as link to a personal > twitter account). This is just a small issue that for some strange reason > requires 50+ emails to resolve. > > Regards > Scott > > On 10/07/2010, at 9:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > >> please read the message i just sent you I mean the current system today. >> >> do not start a revert war, i will follow no problem. >> >> Regards, >> Hans >> >> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:30 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >>> 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. >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz >> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak >> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. >> >
