that includes your svn commit: r962392
Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/10/2010 2:34 AM:
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.
