=Feed%3A+JavaCodeGeeks+%28Java+Code+Geeks%29
>>> I would keep:
>>> 1. Line lenght (80 is ridiculous, it remembers me punched cards :D )
>>> 2. variable names above comments
>>> 3. I agree on 6.3 placement
>>> Opinions? (sorry for sidetracking, I will create a th
. I agree on 6.3 placement
>> Opinions? (sorry for sidetracking, I will create a thread if some are
>> interested....)
>>
>> ----- Original Message -
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <
>
>> jacopo.cappellato@
>
>> >
>> To: <
>
ome are
> interested)
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <
> jacopo.cappellato@
> >
> To: <
> dev@.apache
> >
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1403870 -
>
cement
Opinions? (sorry for sidetracking, I will create a thread if some are
interested)
- Original Message -
From: "Jacopo Cappellato"
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1403870 -
/ofbiz/branches/20120329_portletWidget/framework/en
Thank you Paul.
After a cursory review I also see (in very few lines of the contribution):
* bad formatting
* a bad variable name (why _setOtherFieldsToNull rather than
setOtherFieldsToNull)
* I am also not sure I like the attribute name set-other-fields-to-null (that
is btw better than put-oth
From: "Jacopo Cappellato"
> If you agree with me than let's commit to trunk first (if the objections from
> committers are cleared, and I am not sure it is the case with Scott's one,
> even if I didn't review this particular one) and remove it from the branch.
Yes, I was just discussing about ad
Hi all,
I have no strong opinion on the change itself, which I suppose means I
haven't had a use case that would need it. But the commit change description
is misleading. In the Jira discussion for OFBIZ-4949 I proposed the name
set-other-fields-to-null instead of put-other-field-to-null, and Oliv
If you agree with me than let's commit to trunk first (if the objections from
committers are cleared, and I am not sure it is the case with Scott's one, even
if I didn't review this particular one) and remove it from the branch.
But most importantly: are we (and are you) sure that this was the on
Hi Jacopo,
I understand your formal concerns about being mixed with the branch and I agree
with you.
Apart that, I did not find anything against this patch
http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=OFBIZ-4949
Only Scoot's comment about using fieldName="" which is cleary a less dangerous
but also le
