I don't think you should feel disqualified because you wrote the right code
intially!
Hans has an explanation, but democracy is majority. And Apache way is vote and
majority in such cases. Unfortunately there are no
other best ways than a vote. Now, as David remarked, last time we felt like the
United Nations in some conflicts: you need a
respected police or army to make the law respected...
What I don't understand is why Hans can't keep his changes for himself to let all the others happy (at least Adrian, Scott, David
and I so far...)
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum" <[email protected]>
Maybe a vote is in order. I am not going to initiate one because I am the
author of the original code, so I feel like I am
disqualified.
-Adrian
On 9/12/2011 8:13 PM, David E Jones wrote:
Thanks Adrian, I understand what you're getting at exactly now.
Yes, this is frustrating isn't it, and this pattern seems to come up over and
over. That's why I like the moderated community
approach better (as opposed to the Apache way), and I guess you know my
thoughts and approach on that based on my recent efforts…
Still, I suppose that by the Apache way we should vote on this and consider the
results binding, and make the corresponding
changes. If someone goes against that vote result, then I'm not sure what the
Apache way is… i.e. what do you do about a commit
war?
I don't know.
-David
On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
David,
Keep in mind that the original design is one that you participated in. The
agreement on the setting precedence in the original
Jira issue was this:
widget.properties -> web.xml -> URL parameters
where widget.properties is the global default, which can be overridden by a
setting in web.xml, which can be overridden by
screen widgets or scripts or whatever (via the current context Map).
The design worked great. Then Hans changed it due to a misunderstanding of how
the design works. Despite repeated explanations
of how the design works, and requests from three PMC members to revert his
change, he refused to change it and threatened the
community with a commit war. Since then we have had a number of issues reported
on the mailing list describing how his change
makes the setting unusable.
It amazes me that a single -1 vote vetoes a change in the Apache community, but
three -1 votes from PMC members can't revert
this obvious break in software design.
-Adrian
On 9/12/2011 7:24 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
No. The approach suggested by (and committed by) Hans is that the setting in
the widget.properties file overrides any other
setting.
-Adrian
On 9/12/2011 6:19 PM, David E Jones wrote:
No one agrees with which approach? The approach that if you pass a
widgetVerbose=true HTTP parameter that it should override
the widget.properties setting? I agree with that approach…
-David
On Sep 12, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
That's the problem - no one agrees with that approach.
-Adrian
On 9/12/2011 1:53 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
I think I forgot to forward Hans's answer
Jacques
Hans Bakker wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 05:15 +0200, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
widget.properties's widget.verbose setting has precedence over web.xml's
widgetVerbose setting. So you can't use
parameters.widgetVerbose to override widget.verbose to false. Is
ModelWidget.widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled() written this
way for
some reasons?
there was a lengthly discussion of this. As long as by default the
properties file is not overridden in web.xml is fine either way.
Another issue is that these HTML boundary comments get outputted even though the view
handler is set to "screencsv". In
the
widget-screen.xsd, the only way to invoke a template to produce CSV is
using<html><html-template />, but this always adds
HTML
comments even if the output is CSV (see HtmlWidget class). Maybe we could introduce
a<csv> element or something like
that?
Anyway, both of those problems combined mean that there are no apparent clean ways to
remove the HTML "template begin/end"
boundary comments from the CSV output if you try to draw it with an *.ftl
template. A workaround kludge for now is to
invoke
the FTL manually through a Groovy script.
Thanks
Jacques
