I hate to raise this issue from the dead, but I just want to say that I was
just bitten by the exact scenario I described below.
I was testing out a csv export but the widget comments were coming through in
it, so I thought no problem I'll just add a screen action to set widgetVerbose
to
I have just read the entire thread in Nabble. If I have well understood we
can't any longer override the widget.verbose property (from a web.xml file
or the context) if it's set to true. Isn't that a development functionnal
regression for the convenience of one (business?) person?
If we really
Tell me when you would ever want to override a widget.verbose=true in
widget.properties?
For a business user or a user hosting the application it is important
that when he sets it to true, he wants to see the comments irrespective
of web.xml buried deep down in the system
What is more important?
If the setting is commented out in all OOTB web.xml files then a non-techincal
user will never be bothered by it, case closed.
As for why you would ever want to override widget.verbose=true:
Let's say you have a staging instance deployed on a test server and active
development and debugging is
Sorry Scott, you simply trying to find a reason you just made up now,
Business reasons still more important , is my opinion.
thanks for your reply,
Regards,
Hans
I is extremely far fledged and still think the business user take
priority here.
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 19:32 +1200, Scott Gray
Of course I just made it up, that doesn't make it an invalid scenario though.
Like I said, your business problem can easily be solved without the changes
you made. Simply revert your commit and instead comment out the settings in
the web.xml files and commit that. Problem solved, everybody is
can only repeat what i said: I think he the business reasons should take
priority and leave the system as it is now.
Regards,
Hans
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 20:07 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
Of course I just made it up, that doesn't make it an invalid scenario though.
Like I said, your business
You are yet to explain why simply commenting out the web app settings in the
trunk will not solve your problem. If that is done then the business reasons
will take priority by default.
Regards
Scott
On 10/07/2010, at 8:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
can only repeat what i said: I think he the
I still think the problem for the business user is still much higher
then the not intuitive problem for the experienced technical user. A
parameter in web.xml is easily forgotten which actually started this
whole discussion.
Regards,
Hans
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 20:42 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
You
That's why we comment it out, the only reason you were affected was because it
wasn't commented out. The business user never even has to know that it exists.
If your argument now is that at some point in the future a committer will
accidentally uncomment the setting, then I think you are
You never do give up, do you.
i think the current system is a nice workable solution which does not
need to be changed. That is my last comment.
Regards,
Hans
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
That's why we comment it out, the only reason you were affected was because
it
Since you no longer want to discuss the matter I assume that you are okay for
the code to be changed?
Thanks
Scott
On 10/07/2010, at 9:21 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
You never do give up, do you.
i think the current system is a nice workable solution which does not
need to be changed. That is my
please read the message i just sent you I mean the current system today.
do not start a revert war, i will follow no problem.
Regards,
Hans
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:30 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
Since you no longer want to discuss the matter I assume that you are okay for
the code to be
Relax, I have no intention of reverting your commit without you first agreeing
to it.
I would only attempt to revert something if I thought it was grossly
inappropriate for it to be in the repository (such as link to a personal
twitter account). This is just a small issue that for some
Since no one wants to step back, me probably need a compromise.
What if:
1) we treat widget.verbose as in Hans' last commit: if set, it will override
all the other settings (context and web.xml)
2) we add a new parameter widget.verbose.default that is treated as it was
previously: use context
That's a lot of changes for something that wasn't broken to begin with. I
would rather just give up than see even more complications added to something
that was originally simple. I can always just chalk this down to another
instance where common sense didn't prevail.
I'm going to say it one
--- On Fri, 7/9/10, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
if this would be the first time i talk to Adrian, I agree
you were
right, however this discussion has a long history with
other
discussions, i tried your approach many times, but i cannot
get Adrian
to answer simple
On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
2. You're not the first to mention it but I don't know where this idea of a
veto came from, it doesn't exist. When required, the PMC as a group can make
binding decisions but not individuals.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
and also this one:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto
Jacopo
On Jul 10, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
2. You're not the first to mention it but I don't know where this idea of a
veto came from, it doesn't
if I read this correct then any commit requires a vote of the PMC?
that would certainly increase communications, which I am all in favor of.
Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 7/10/2010 10:56 AM:
On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
2. You're not the first to mention it but I
so votes in a jira are PMC only?
and if no votes is the lazy consensus
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Lazy
do all commits require the lazy consensus in the mailing list before?
Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 7/10/2010 10:56 AM:
On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Scott Gray
apologize meant
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
and I like to see this thought it would really slow things down
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit
BJ Freeman sent the following on 7/10/2010 11:37 AM:
so votes in a jira are PMC only?
and
that includes your svn commit: r962392
Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/10/2010 2:34 AM:
please read the message i just sent you I mean the current system today.
do not start a revert war, i will follow no problem.
Regards,
Hans
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 21:30 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
Since
off. That should be changed so they are
on by default.
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones d...@me.com wrote:
From: David E Jones d...@me.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday
be controlled.
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684
-
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 11:33 PM
Adrian,
can you please give us the business reason why you want the
widget
properties setting via widgets.properties and web.xml
Jonesd...@me.com wrote:
From: David E Jonesd...@me.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:52 PM
Just because you are fine with how it works doesn't mean
others are fine
-1318
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8
...@me.com wrote:
From: David E Jonesd...@me.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:52 PM
Just because you are fine with how it works doesn't mean
others
is so hard to understand about that?
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jonesd...@me.com
wrote:
From: David E Jonesd...@me.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10
BJ Freeman wrote:
I would like to see one place that enables them all
but if that is not enabled then web.xml would.
with as many components(over 30) I have I would like the all function.
I haven't looked at at any of the code, but what you guys want here is
boolean logic with tri-states.
if
...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 11:33 PM
Adrian,
can you please give us the business reason why you want the
widget
properties setting via
On 7/9/2010 7:00 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
BJ Freeman wrote:
I would like to see one place that enables them all
but if that is not enabled then web.xml would.
with as many components(over 30) I have I would like the all function.
I haven't looked at at any of the code, but what you guys want
Adrian Crum wrote:
On 7/9/2010 7:00 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
BJ Freeman wrote:
I would like to see one place that enables them all
but if that is not enabled then web.xml would.
with as many components(over 30) I have I would like the all function.
I haven't looked at at any of the code, but
On 7/9/2010 8:32 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
Adrian Crum wrote:
On 7/9/2010 7:00 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
BJ Freeman wrote:
I would like to see one place that enables them all
but if that is not enabled then web.xml would.
with as many components(over 30) I have I would like the all function.
I
Adrian Crum wrote:
It's unfortunate that anyone in the community should feel the need to
avoid taking sides. From my perspective, there are no sides in this
discussion. I am simply trying to educate a fellow committer on the
design of a piece of code I authored. In addition, I'm also trying to
...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 11:33 PM
Adrian,
can you please give us the business reason why you want the
widget
properties setting via
Hans Bakker wrote:
Adrian.
This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.
This is not helpful. If you believe someone hasn't understood what
you have said, then don't just respond saying that you didn't
understand. You should re-explain it in a different way. If there
was
Adam,
if this would be the first time i talk to Adrian, I agree you were
right, however this discussion has a long history with other
discussions, i tried your approach many times, but i cannot get Adrian
to answer simple questions on the business level. Technically no
problem, very good to have
On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
example component not showing comments. I see no valid business reason
why we should have that.
Let's be clear, there was no problem with the way it worked before, changing
the
You still not give me a business reason why the change i did was harmful
or break anything.
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:02 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
On 10/07/2010, at 4:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Before also true could be overridden which was painfully shown in the
example component not showing
I don't see a huge problem with your change but I have to admit that I don't
remember what your change actually does. There is a reason why I don't
remember though, because it isn't intuitive.
With the way things were before, it was easy to understand:
context overrides web.xml overrides
The context setting should override the widget.properties setting, that is the
only reason why we have a context version of the setting.
Please respond to this one, you haven't responded to the discussion regarding
your last commit yet.
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
I agree with what the description of the code says at the top.
your setting makes that the widget.verbose by default is false and the
messages are not shown.
Regards,
Hans
P.S. i missed the last comments, which one?
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 21:54 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
The context setting
perhaps some more qualification: The context does override but only in
the case when the properties file is false.
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:13 +0700, Hans Bakker wrote:
I agree with what the description of the code says at the top.
your setting makes that the widget.verbose by default is
Okay that should work, sorry, I only read the commit message but didn't go and
look at the code.
I think ideally the context setting would be null always unless an override
should take place and in when it is set then the widget.properties setting
should be ignored. But the situation you've
...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 3:13 AM
I agree with what the description of
the code says at the top
-
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 3:13 AM
I agree with what the description of
the code says at the top.
your setting makes that the widget.verbose by default is
false and the
messages
mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 3:13 AM
I agree with what
, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 3:13 AM
I agree with what
).
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8
comments can be controlled.
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date
be controlled.
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8
advice.
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010
...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 8:33 PM
Adrian,
what i proposed to you was a compromise. You seem to only
accept your
way, as happened many
mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 8:33 PM
Adrian,
what i proposed to you was a compromise. You seem to only
accept your
way, as happened
to understand about that?
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones d...@me.com wrote:
From: David E Jones d...@me.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:32 PM
Adrian
...@antwebsystems.com
wrote:
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 8:33 PM
Adrian,
what i proposed to you was a compromise
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones d...@me.com wrote:
From: David E Jones d...@me.com
Subject: Re: svn commit: r961684 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 10:32 PM
Adrian,
I hate to say
59 matches
Mail list logo
