My comments.
On 7/26/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/26/07, Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To finish up, If some where on the way of contributing this autocomplete > version I steped on anybodies toes then I am sorry and can bet that it was > not intended at all. I am not here to compete in any way with anybody. > heh i dont think this is what janne meant at all.
Igor, with ALL DUE RESPECT ok?, because I feel that part is getting out. And I am not attacking anyone here. But it is clearly stated that: "It seems you have copy-pasted a quite bunch of code, and if you're going to develop this further there is no point for me to try to remove the code duplication" I don't intend to replace any code. You get my code and do whatever you feel with it. Change it - refactor it - renamed it. Don't include it in wicket extension, whatever. But don't say it is just a copy-paste and is not worth replacing code that is a copy o something that already exist. I think this is clearly stated.
what he is saying is that because you separated everything into a different package and did not do this as a patch it makes it a hell of a lot harder to merge it into extensions codebase and to see exactly where the differences are.
In every mail message I try to explain this to be a first time for me, and try asking for concrete directions. I'll hope to do better the next time. if any. screenshots are nice (the mailing list stripped them btw) but having those
differences open inside an ide is much better.
Can you see these attachments now? or are they still being stripped out? so here are my two cents:
there are two ways of integrating this into our codebase if that is what you want: a) replace our autocomplete with this one - in which case we need to decide how to do it since you did not do this as a patch.
NO no no no no. The autocomplete version I submitted to the jira is for key and value options and that is eventually an exception to the normal case in which someone would just want an autocomplete and that is that. Although feel free to take my implementation of the way the HTML elements get created and referenced to be able to have a table. But once more this is an exception and not a normal autocomplete behavior. b) put this as an alternative into wicket-stuff, maybe wicketstuff-minis
project. the added bonus is that you can directly maintain it, the con being that we will essentially have two "competing" implementations of the same thing. competing in the sense that users will have to choose one.
Excelent, the option any of you guys defined for me is fine by me. The only thing I don't want is to generate any confussions. And be able to help out. -igor
