Well, I'm not sure if my vote counts, but I'm certainly +1. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Property tag (beating the decomposed horse)
> Oh, and everyone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe this how the > votes stack up (and of course, most of the +1 crew doesn't really have real > voting power, but I think it's still important to remember). Also, I've put > stars next to regular contributors, so we can see who does have voting > power. As you can see, it's a tie. With the rest of the votes going towards > making this _addition_ (not change, since nothing is being removed), > shouldn't the vote swing in the +1 favor? > > I ask this because I'm still working on the OpenSymphony guidelines doc and > this is a good example of where we can squash the issue for good by just > following the procedures. Is there anything flawed with the voting count > above? If the outcome does not satisfy you, please let me know how the rules > would need to change so that it does, and I'll modify those rules in the > document I'm writing. > > Chris +1 > *Pat +1 > Anders +1 > Joe +1 > *Erik +1 > Francisco +1 > Hai +1 > Wayland +1 > Vedovato +1 > Jason +1 > Mike 0 (-1?) > *Rickard -1 > *Maurice -1 > Bruce -1 > Hani -1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:01 AM > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Property tag (beating the decomposed horse) > > > > It's a different approach I suppose. > > > > I didn't know of the TWO uses of the propertytag, let alone the 3 uses. > I'm not > > angry or irritated at anyone because of it, in fact, I was rather > delighted when > > I found out the other uses. I'm glad they're documented now. Most of all > > however, I like the fact that I was able to use propertytag without > reading any > > docs. I like the fact that I was using the valuestack without even > understanding > > what it is, or how and why it's working its magic. Maybe adding more tags > will > > make that easier, it just doesn't feel that way though based on all the > > discussion here. > > > > Quoting Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Agreed. While I'm not a regular WW user these days due to circumstances > > > beyond my control (and I use Velocity with WW rather that JSP anyway), I > > > still try to keep abreast of WW's progress. From what I've read of this > > > debate, one thing is readily apparent. The existing property tag is > *not* > > > intuitive. To quote an earlier comment from Mike: > > > > > > "Well, I actually wrote the original two uses of the PropertyTag (which > you > > > are correct - is in fact 3, would you believe I didn't know about the > third > > > one? ;))" > > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong but I am sure that Mike uses WW extensively, and > > > has > > > been doing so for quite some time. If even he didn't know all the > > > subtleties > > > of that tag, what chance does a newbie have? Documentation alone isn't > the > > > best solution - docs plus intuitive design is. Has anyone here ever > tried > > > to > > > use all the various permutations of the struts <html:select> tag for > > > iteration? There is a lot of documentation for that tag, and I've been > > > using > > > it for quite some time now. But almost without fail I still have to > either > > > cut'n'paste existing code, or refer to the documentation to get the damn > > > thing working each and every time! > > > > > > I haven't looked at the replacement tags Anders has submitted so I can't > > > comment on whether those are 'better' or not, but I would encourage > > > everyone > > > in this debate to think about what the taglib should look like in a > perfect > > > world, ie *without regard for what currently exists*. THAT should then > > > become the goal for XWork 2.0. Obviously backwards compatibility is > > > crucial, > > > but deprecation can take care of that if need be. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > "Jason Carreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > > news:CD44D03584C7A249A3F86891B24EB8EA03FDCAB9@;ehost003.intermedia.net... > > > Yeah, not like the current ever-so-transparent ww:property tag that > > > everyone > > > just understands without any explanation. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:hani@;formicary.net] > > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:34 AM > > > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Property tag (beating the decomposed horse) > > > > > > > > > Excellent! A great way of ensuring nobody is able to use webwork without > > > first going through lots of docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
