I'm currently not able to check on these changes as I'm at a JSR-301 F2F and can't get my laptop to connect to the internet (I'm typing this response at a public booth) which it looks like will remain so the next 2 days :(
Anyway, if this is all true, I fully agree these changes need to be rolled back. Its clear there are areas in Pluto 2.0 trunk which needs fixing and implementing before it can be considered usable and more or less complete. Simply ripping out FIXME and TODO comment won't bring us any closer to that, on the contrary... My suggestion is th following: - rollback these changes - make a list of all *must* have issues/FIXMEs - make a list of all *nice* to have TODOs - if need be, discuss these on the dev list first - create JIRA issues for all the above, making (at least) the first list items required for the 2.0 container release Regards, Ate > > Torsten, > > I very much appreciated the work you and your group has done to create > Pluto 2.0, but I was very disappointed in many of the commits you did > today. Rather than fixing most of the TODOs and FIXMEs, you just erased > them. Some of the TODOs and FIXMEs are inconsequential and not necessary > and should be erased and some FIXMEs are not that important and should be > changed to TODOs. But many of these should have been fixed before the > FIXME > or TODO was removed. > > Here are a few specific comments: > 1. Many of the TODOs are those automatically added by Eclipse and are > labelled "Auto-generated catch block" and include a printStackTrace() call > to stdout. This should have been changed to log to Pluto's log file > including a relevant message and the exception so the stack trace will > appear in the Pluto log. Consideration should also be made to rethrow the > exception so it is propagated up the stack trace to the user. > 2. The FIXME in SupportedModesServiceImpl.isPortletManagedMode() refers to > the fact that this method is not properly implemented and had notes on how > to implement the method. You just erased the FIXME and notes rather than > fixing the method as detailed in the FIXME comment. > 3. In PortletURLTag286.doStartTag(), rather than implementing the FIXME > suggestion, you just erased the FIXME and the suggested code that was > commented out. > > I think the commits where FIXMEs and TODOs are just erased should be > rolled > back except in those cases where the FIXME or TODO does not add value or > the issue pointed out by the FIXME or TODO was fixed. Does anybody else > have this opinion or am I making too much out of nothing here? >
