You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com> on 2010/07/08 11:54:38 UTC

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

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

On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org wrote:

> Author: hansbak
> Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> New Revision: 961684
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> Log:
> make widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the descriptions states: Widget boundary comments are enabled by setting widgetVerbose true in the context Map, OR by setting widget.verbose=true in widget.properties. And not let the context override the widget.properties setting
> 
> Modified:
>    ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> 
> Modified: ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java (original)
> +++ ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package org.ofbiz.widget;
> import java.io.Serializable;
> import java.util.Map;
> import org.w3c.dom.Element;
> +import org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> 
> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class ModelWidget implements Seri
>      */
>     public static boolean widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends Object> context) {
>         boolean result = "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget", "widget.verbose"));
> -        if (context != null) {
> +        if (result == false && context != null) {
>             String str = (String) context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>             if (str != null) {
>                 result = "true".equals(str);
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 described will cover the most common override scenario so it sounds good to me.

Thanks
Scott

p.s. the other thread was regarding the BigDecimal/double fix: r960502
I should clarify that you replied initially but not when the discussion continued

On 8/07/2010, at 10:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> 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 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 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
>>> 
>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>> Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
>>>> New Revision: 961684
>>>> 
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> make widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the descriptions states: Widget boundary comments are enabled by setting widgetVerbose true in the context Map, OR by setting widget.verbose=true in widget.properties. And not let the context override the widget.properties setting
>>>> 
>>>> Modified:
>>>>   ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>> 
>>>> Modified: ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java (original)
>>>> +++ ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>> import java.io.Serializable;
>>>> import java.util.Map;
>>>> import org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>> +import org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>> import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>> import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>> 
>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class ModelWidget implements Seri
>>>>     */
>>>>    public static boolean widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends Object> context) {
>>>>        boolean result = "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget", "widget.verbose"));
>>>> -        if (context != null) {
>>>> +        if (result == false && context != null) {
>>>>            String str = (String) context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>            if (str != null) {
>>>>                result = "true".equals(str);
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
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 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 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
> > 
> > On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org wrote:
> > 
> > > Author: hansbak
> > > Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > New Revision: 961684
> > > 
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > make widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the descriptions states: Widget boundary comments are enabled by setting widgetVerbose true in the context Map, OR by setting widget.verbose=true in widget.properties. And not let the context override the widget.properties setting
> > > 
> > > Modified:
> > >    ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > 
> > > Modified: ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > > ==============================================================================
> > > --- ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java (original)
> > > +++ ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package org.ofbiz.widget;
> > > import java.io.Serializable;
> > > import java.util.Map;
> > > import org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > > +import org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > > import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > > import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > > 
> > > @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class ModelWidget implements Seri
> > >      */
> > >     public static boolean widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends Object> context) {
> > >         boolean result = "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget", "widget.verbose"));
> > > -        if (context != null) {
> > > +        if (result == false && context != null) {
> > >             String str = (String) context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > >             if (str != null) {
> > >                 result = "true".equals(str);
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com> wrote:
> David E Jones wrote:
> > Adrian,
> > 
> > I hate to say it, but it seems like these messages
> from Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to
> initiate a discussion on the best way to go forward, and
> your messages are not discussing the issue and instead
> appealing to some sort of reason to not change how things
> are at all.
> > 
> > This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so who
> is it that you want Hans to cooperate with? 
> 
> True.  However, it's not just that simple.
> 
> Both sides are not working with each other.  One says
> the status quo
> is unchangeable.  The other is saying that their code
> change is the
> only way to fix the issue.

Close, but not quite right. The person having the problem should ask for help in trying to fix it - not break the trunk in an uninformed effort to fix it. If Hans will revert his changes, then we can move forward. I will be glad to help him.

> Both sides should step back, and try to understand the
> problem at hand.
> 
> > 
> > -David
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > 
> >> Hans,
> >>
> >> There was no need for a compromise because there
> was no problem to begin with.
> >>
> >> You just admitted the problem you were
> experiencing was due to a misconfiguration in your local
> copy. Your solution to that misconfiguration was to change
> the trunk. The trunk was not the problem - the problem was
> in your local copy.
> >>
> >> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break it.
> >>
> >> If you revert your changes and properly configure
> your local copy, then everything will work as you expect it
> to.
> >>
> >> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community of
> peers and things will go smoother if you learn to follow
> advice.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >>
> >> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in the past.
> >>>
> >>> therefore i am not in for compromises any
> more. I would
> >>> like you to
> >>> remove the context code which enables the
> override in the
> >>> web.xml. It
> >>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated for
> a feature i
> >>> see no use. 
> >>>
> >>> It also causes to prohibit widgets comments in
> the example
> >>> component
> >>> which should show comments by default to
> follow the
> >>> principle to show
> >>> all possibilities in the system
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hans
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian Crum
> wrote:
> >>>> Hans,
> >>>>
> >>>> It's good that you took the time to
> understand the
> >>> problem.
> >>>> What would be acceptable is to revert the
> changes you
> >>> made so the original behavior is restored.
> Your first commit
> >>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and
> your second
> >>> commit disables a demonstration of how the
> widget comments
> >>> can be controlled.
> >>>> -Adrian
> >>>>
> >>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35 PM
> >>>>> Ok this is what happened:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4 weeks
> ago. Some
> >>> time ago i
> >>>>> created a new
> >>>>> component in hot deploy using the
> web.xml from
> >>> the example
> >>>>> component. I
> >>>>> see the widget comments are not
> generated. I
> >>> check
> >>>>> widget.properties and
> >>>>> see the parameter is set to true. I
> used this
> >>> feature
> >>>>> before and never
> >>>>> had a problem. I see that in
> >>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> >>>>> class the
> >>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true to
> false.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I not really see the benefit of this
> code, why
> >>> would
> >>>>> somebody want to
> >>>>> change this setting by the context
> content?
> >>> However, as
> >>>>> long as the
> >>>>> parameter in widget properties works,
> then i am
> >>> fine. So i
> >>>>> made the
> >>>>> change that this parameter can only be
> overridden
> >>> if the
> >>>>> widget comments
> >>>>> are switched of.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I now see that the comments in the
> example
> >>> component are
> >>>>> switched off in
> >>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand
> this,
> >>> especially the
> >>>>> example component
> >>>>> should show comments?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I avoid this confusion in the future I
> added a
> >>> comment in
> >>>>> widget.properties that only 'false'
> can be
> >>> overridden and
> >>>>> commented out
> >>>>> the code in web.xml of the example
> component.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I expect this should be acceptable to
> everybody?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200,
> Scott Gray
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Hans,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Two points:
> >>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is just
> a
> >>> discussion. 
> >>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code is
> perfectly
> >>> valid,
> >>>>> getting mad and making threats is not
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans
> Bakker
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> please check the code before
> you
> >>> comment?
> >>>>>>> i changed it because the
> comments were
> >>> not shown
> >>>>> by default anymore as
> >>>>>>> was originally.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you go that far , i will go
> so far
> >>> and will
> >>>>> use my veto and revert
> >>>>>>> the code that added this
> context stuff?
> >>> 'true' in
> >>>>> the properties file
> >>>>>>> should always show the
> widgets
> >>> comments
> >>>>> irrespective of the context.
> >>>>>>> no wonder there aren't any
> significant
> >>> changes in
> >>>>> the last few
> >>>>>>> months ....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47
> -0700,
> >>> Adrian Crum
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Then you should change
> the
> >>> description, not
> >>>>> the code. The intended behavior is:
> >>>>>>>> The properties setting is
> the
> >>> default, it can
> >>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
> >>> (application-wide
> >>>>> setting), or in the context
> (screen-specific
> >>> setting).
> >>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
> Bakker
> >>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker
> <ma...@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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010, at
> 9:49 PM,
> >>> hansbak@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Author:
> hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
> Jul  8
> >>> 09:49:57
> >>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>> New Revision:
> 961684
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> >>>>>>>>>>> Log:
> >>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as
> the
> >>>>>>>>> descriptions states:
> Widget
> >>> boundary
> >>>>> comments are enabled by
> >>>>>>>>> setting widgetVerbose
> true in
> >>> the context
> >>>>> Map, OR by setting
> >>>>>>>>> widget.verbose=true
> in
> >>> widget.properties.
> >>>>> And not let the
> >>>>>>>>> context override the
> >>> widget.properties
> >>>>> setting
> >>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> ==============================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>> (original)
> >>>>>>>>>>> +++
> >>>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8
> 09:49:57 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7
> @@
> >>> package
> >>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> >>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>> java.io.Serializable;
> >>>>>>>>>>> import
> java.util.Map;
> >>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> >>>>>>>>>>> +import
> >>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> >>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> >>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7
> +111,7 @@
> >>> public class
> >>>>> ModelWidget
> >>>>>>>>> implements Seri
> >>>>>>>>>>>  
> >>>    */
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
>    public
> >>> static
> >>>>> boolean
> >>>>>
> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> >>> extends
> >>>>>>>>> Object> context) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>    
> >>>    
> >>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>> result =
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> >>>>>>>>> "widget.verbose"));
> >>>>>>>>>>> - 
>    
> >>>   if
> >>>>> (context != null)
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>> + 
>    
> >>>   if
> >>>>> (result == false
> >>>>>>>>> && context !=
> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>    String
> str =
> >>> (String)
> >>>>>
> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> >>>>>>>>>    if (str
> !=
> >>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>    result =
> >>>>> "true".equals(str);
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> Quality
> >>> services for
> >>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> services
> >>> for
> >>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services
> for
> >>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>> -- 
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> competitive rates.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
David E Jones wrote:
> Adrian,
> 
> I hate to say it, but it seems like these messages from Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to initiate a discussion on the best way to go forward, and your messages are not discussing the issue and instead appealing to some sort of reason to not change how things are at all.
> 
> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so who is it that you want Hans to cooperate with? 

True.  However, it's not just that simple.

Both sides are not working with each other.  One says the status quo
is unchangeable.  The other is saying that their code change is the
only way to fix the issue.

Both sides should step back, and try to understand the problem at hand.

> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
>> Hans,
>>
>> There was no need for a compromise because there was no problem to begin with.
>>
>> You just admitted the problem you were experiencing was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy. Your solution to that misconfiguration was to change the trunk. The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in your local copy.
>>
>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break it.
>>
>> If you revert your changes and properly configure your local copy, then everything will work as you expect it to.
>>
>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community of peers and things will go smoother if you learn to follow advice.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in the past.
>>>
>>> therefore i am not in for compromises any more. I would
>>> like you to
>>> remove the context code which enables the override in the
>>> web.xml. It
>>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated for a feature i
>>> see no use. 
>>>
>>> It also causes to prohibit widgets comments in the example
>>> component
>>> which should show comments by default to follow the
>>> principle to show
>>> all possibilities in the system
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> Hans,
>>>>
>>>> It's good that you took the time to understand the
>>> problem.
>>>> What would be acceptable is to revert the changes you
>>> made so the original behavior is restored. Your first commit
>>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and your second
>>> commit disables a demonstration of how the widget comments
>>> can be controlled.
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35 PM
>>>>> Ok this is what happened:
>>>>>
>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4 weeks ago. Some
>>> time ago i
>>>>> created a new
>>>>> component in hot deploy using the web.xml from
>>> the example
>>>>> component. I
>>>>> see the widget comments are not generated. I
>>> check
>>>>> widget.properties and
>>>>> see the parameter is set to true. I used this
>>> feature
>>>>> before and never
>>>>> had a problem. I see that in
>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
>>>>> class the
>>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true to false.
>>>>>
>>>>> I not really see the benefit of this code, why
>>> would
>>>>> somebody want to
>>>>> change this setting by the context content?
>>> However, as
>>>>> long as the
>>>>> parameter in widget properties works, then i am
>>> fine. So i
>>>>> made the
>>>>> change that this parameter can only be overridden
>>> if the
>>>>> widget comments
>>>>> are switched of.
>>>>>
>>>>> I now see that the comments in the example
>>> component are
>>>>> switched off in
>>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand this,
>>> especially the
>>>>> example component
>>>>> should show comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> I avoid this confusion in the future I added a
>>> comment in
>>>>> widget.properties that only 'false' can be
>>> overridden and
>>>>> commented out
>>>>> the code in web.xml of the example component.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect this should be acceptable to everybody?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200, Scott Gray
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two points:
>>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is just a
>>> discussion. 
>>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code is perfectly
>>> valid,
>>>>> getting mad and making threats is not
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans Bakker
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> please check the code before you
>>> comment?
>>>>>>> i changed it because the comments were
>>> not shown
>>>>> by default anymore as
>>>>>>> was originally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you go that far , i will go so far
>>> and will
>>>>> use my veto and revert
>>>>>>> the code that added this context stuff?
>>> 'true' in
>>>>> the properties file
>>>>>>> should always show the widgets
>>> comments
>>>>> irrespective of the context.
>>>>>>> no wonder there aren't any significant
>>> changes in
>>>>> the last few
>>>>>>> months ....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47 -0700,
>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Then you should change the
>>> description, not
>>>>> the code. The intended behavior is:
>>>>>>>> The properties setting is the
>>> default, it can
>>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
>>> (application-wide
>>>>> setting), or in the context (screen-specific
>>> setting).
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM,
>>> hansbak@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Jul  8
>>> 09:49:57
>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 961684
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
>>>>>>>>> descriptions states: Widget
>>> boundary
>>>>> comments are enabled by
>>>>>>>>> setting widgetVerbose true in
>>> the context
>>>>> Map, OR by setting
>>>>>>>>> widget.verbose=true in
>>> widget.properties.
>>>>> And not let the
>>>>>>>>> context override the
>>> widget.properties
>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>> package
>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>> java.io.Serializable;
>>>>>>>>>>> import java.util.Map;
>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>>>>>>>>> +import
>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@
>>> public class
>>>>> ModelWidget
>>>>>>>>> implements Seri
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>    */
>>>>>>>>>>>     public
>>> static
>>>>> boolean
>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
>>> extends
>>>>>>>>> Object> context) {
>>>>>>>>>>>    
>>>    
>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>> result =
>>>>>>>>>
>>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
>>>>>>>>> "widget.verbose"));
>>>>>>>>>>> -     
>>>   if
>>>>> (context != null)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> +     
>>>   if
>>>>> (result == false
>>>>>>>>> && context != null) {
>>>>>>>>>    String str =
>>> (String)
>>>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>>>>>>    if (str !=
>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>    result =
>>>>> "true".equals(str);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
>>> services for
>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services
>>> for
>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
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
> reinforce the concept of "understand the code before you change it."

<whisper>automated test cases</whisper>

Not only do tests help to ensure that changes don't break anything,
but they also serve as documentation in how to do things.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
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 haven't looked at at any of the code, but what you guys want here is
>>> boolean logic with tri-states.
>>>
>>> if web.xml doesn't have the setting, use the global value.
>>> if there is no global value, then default to false.
>>>
>>> So you would remove all these settings from all components, then they
>>> would all use the value of the global setting.
>>>
>>> But if a pariticular web.xml has the value set, then it would become
>>> disconnected from the global setting.
>>
>> That was the behavior before Hans changed it. Now local settings are
>> ignored if the global setting is true.
>>
>> And it isn't tri-state - it's more like inheritance. The
>> widget.properties setting is the default. You can override that setting
>> in web.xml. On top of that you can override both of those settings with
>> a parameter or context variable.
>
> If that's the case, then the change should be reverted.
>
> In such a tri-state system, either the global setting is a higher
> priority, or the local setting is.  There is no way the global could
> be higher in one situation, and the local higher in another.
>
> Before this change, the local setting had priority.  After this
> change(based on discussion I've seen here), a global setting has priority.

That was the problem Hans encountered. His custom application's web.xml 
file overrode the default setting, but he wasn't aware that the setting 
existed.

> There is no particular reason to have one setting have more priority
> than the other, so in those situations, the status quo should be
> followed, which means don't change it.  So, the patch should be reverted.
>
> Now, a could different separate discussions could be started, if: one,
> this global/local setting doesn't follow the pattern in other parts of
> ofbiz, or two, the system should be changed to allow global settings
> to take priority.

That discussion has occurred in the past and it certainly could be 
discussed again. The original code had the HTML comments default to off 
globally, and somewhere along the line the setting was changed to on. 
The Example component always had the comments disabled - so its behavior 
didn't differ from the other components until the global setting was 
changed.

The Example component could be changed to have the HTML comments 
enabled, and maybe have them disabled in one screen with an explanatory 
comment that it is set that way to demonstrate the feature.

> ps: I'm just trying to restate what I have seen said in this thread,
> in a way that everyone involved can understand and agree on.  I have
> tried not to take any particular side(that sounds combative), or make
> any kind of decision.

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 
reinforce the concept of "understand the code before you change it."

-Adrian

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
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 what you guys want here is
>> boolean logic with tri-states.
>>
>> if web.xml doesn't have the setting, use the global value.
>> if there is no global value, then default to false.
>>
>> So you would remove all these settings from all components, then they
>> would all use the value of the global setting.
>>
>> But if a pariticular web.xml has the value set, then it would become
>> disconnected from the global setting.
> 
> That was the behavior before Hans changed it. Now local settings are
> ignored if the global setting is true.
> 
> And it isn't tri-state - it's more like inheritance. The
> widget.properties setting is the default. You can override that setting
> in web.xml. On top of that you can override both of those settings with
> a parameter or context variable.

If that's the case, then the change should be reverted.

In such a tri-state system, either the global setting is a higher
priority, or the local setting is.  There is no way the global could
be higher in one situation, and the local higher in another.

Before this change, the local setting had priority.  After this
change(based on discussion I've seen here), a global setting has priority.

There is no particular reason to have one setting have more priority
than the other, so in those situations, the status quo should be
followed, which means don't change it.  So, the patch should be reverted.

Now, a could different separate discussions could be started, if: one,
this global/local setting doesn't follow the pattern in other parts of
ofbiz, or two, the system should be changed to allow global settings
to take priority.

ps: I'm just trying to restate what I have seen said in this thread,
in a way that everyone involved can understand and agree on.  I have
tried not to take any particular side(that sounds combative), or make
any kind of decision.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
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 here is
> boolean logic with tri-states.
>
> if web.xml doesn't have the setting, use the global value.
> if there is no global value, then default to false.
>
> So you would remove all these settings from all components, then they
> would all use the value of the global setting.
>
> But if a pariticular web.xml has the value set, then it would become
> disconnected from the global setting.

That was the behavior before Hans changed it. Now local settings are 
ignored if the global setting is true.

And it isn't tri-state - it's more like inheritance. The 
widget.properties setting is the default. You can override that setting 
in web.xml. On top of that you can override both of those settings with 
a parameter or context variable.

This was discussed during the design phase. My original code just had 
the widget.properties setting. Someone wanted to set it in web.xml. 
Someone else wanted to set it in a parameter. The end result satisfied 
everyone's needs.

-Adrian

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
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 web.xml doesn't have the setting, use the global value.
if there is no global value, then default to false.

So you would remove all these settings from all components, then they
would all use the value of the global setting.

But if a pariticular web.xml has the value set, then it would become
disconnected from the global setting.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
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.

Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/9/2010 12:22 AM:
> That is exactly what my change is doing,
> only let the context override when the widget.properties parameter is
> false: no widget comments unless enabled over web.xml
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:56 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> I can think of one.
>> adding new components to a production site and not wanting to activated
>> for the whole application.
>>
>> Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/8/2010 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 as you implemented
>>> it?
>>>
>>> i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of view. The
>>> disadvantages I already gave you.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all along.
>>>>
>>>> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the settings in Hans' local copy.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
>>>>
>>>> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I believe generates new components) has widget comments turned off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 with it, which is usually the reason a
>>>>> discussion starts and discovering such differences and
>>>>> exploring possible resolutions is the point of discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also noticed that
>>>>> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on by default
>>>>> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think that the
>>>>> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In fact, I think
>>>>> how it worked before the round of changes to this that were
>>>>> done before the changes Hans made was the way to go, ie:
>>>>> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
>>>>> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments on) with a
>>>>> configuration option to make it more production-friendly
>>>>> (demarcation comments off).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are missing the point - there was no issue. The
>>>>> code worked fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct behavior as
>>>>> designed was detailed in my first reply. If anyone needs
>>>>> further information they can check the commit logs and the
>>>>> related Jira issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he didn't
>>>>> understand why it wasn't working the way it should. Instead
>>>>> of asking for help on the mailing list, he arbitrarily
>>>>> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the same thing
>>>>> there would be a similar reaction from the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his local
>>>>> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a mistake in
>>>>> someone's local copy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Hans wants to change the design, then that's fine -
>>>>> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk is broken.
>>>>> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and asked him
>>>>> to unbreak it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is so hard to understand about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 it, but it seems like these messages
>>>>> from
>>>>>>> Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to
>>>>> initiate a
>>>>>>> discussion on the best way to go forward, and your
>>>>> messages
>>>>>>> are not discussing the issue and instead appealing
>>>>> to some
>>>>>>> sort of reason to not change how things are at
>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so
>>>>> who is it
>>>>>>> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was no need for a compromise because
>>>>> there was
>>>>>>> no problem to begin with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just admitted the problem you were
>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>> was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy.
>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> solution to that misconfiguration was to change
>>>>> the trunk.
>>>>>>> The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in
>>>>> your
>>>>>>> local copy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you revert your changes and properly
>>>>> configure your
>>>>>>> local copy, then everything will work as you
>>>>> expect it to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community
>>>>> of peers
>>>>>>> and things will go smoother if you learn to follow
>>>>> advice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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 times in the past.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> therefore i am not in for compromises any
>>>>> more. I
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> like you to
>>>>>>>>> remove the context code which enables the
>>>>> override
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> web.xml. It
>>>>>>>>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated
>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> feature i
>>>>>>>>> see no use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also causes to prohibit widgets
>>>>> comments in the
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>> which should show comments by default to
>>>>> follow
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> principle to show
>>>>>>>>> all possibilities in the system
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian
>>>>> Crum
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's good that you took the time to
>>>>> understand
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What would be acceptable is to revert
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> changes you
>>>>>>>>> made so the original behavior is restored.
>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> first commit
>>>>>>>>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> your second
>>>>>>>>> commit disables a demonstration of how the
>>>>> widget
>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>> can be controlled.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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, 7:35
>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok this is what happened:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4
>>>>> weeks ago.
>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>>>> time ago i
>>>>>>>>>>> created a new
>>>>>>>>>>> component in hot deploy using the
>>>>> web.xml
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> the example
>>>>>>>>>>> component. I
>>>>>>>>>>> see the widget comments are not
>>>>> generated.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties and
>>>>>>>>>>> see the parameter is set to true.
>>>>> I used
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>> before and never
>>>>>>>>>>> had a problem. I see that in
>>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
>>>>>>>>>>> class the
>>>>>>>>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I not really see the benefit of
>>>>> this code,
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> somebody want to
>>>>>>>>>>> change this setting by the
>>>>> context
>>>>>>> content?
>>>>>>>>> However, as
>>>>>>>>>>> long as the
>>>>>>>>>>> parameter in widget properties
>>>>> works, then
>>>>>>> i am
>>>>>>>>> fine. So i
>>>>>>>>>>> made the
>>>>>>>>>>> change that this parameter can
>>>>> only be
>>>>>>> overridden
>>>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>>>>>> widget comments
>>>>>>>>>>> are switched of.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I now see that the comments in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>> component are
>>>>>>>>>>> switched off in
>>>>>>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand
>>>>> this,
>>>>>>>>> especially the
>>>>>>>>>>> example component
>>>>>>>>>>> should show comments?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I avoid this confusion in the
>>>>> future I
>>>>>>> added a
>>>>>>>>> comment in
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties that only
>>>>> 'false' can
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> overridden and
>>>>>>>>>>> commented out
>>>>>>>>>>> the code in web.xml of the
>>>>> example
>>>>>>> component.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I expect this should be acceptable
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> everybody?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200,
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> Gray
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two points:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is
>>>>> just a
>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>>> valid,
>>>>>>>>>>> getting mad and making threats is
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please check the code
>>>>> before you
>>>>>>>>> comment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i changed it because the
>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> not shown
>>>>>>>>>>> by default anymore as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was originally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you go that far , i
>>>>> will go so
>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>> and will
>>>>>>>>>>> use my veto and revert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code that added this
>>>>> context
>>>>>>> stuff?
>>>>>>>>> 'true' in
>>>>>>>>>>> the properties file
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always show the
>>>>> widgets
>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>>>> irrespective of the context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no wonder there aren't
>>>>> any
>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>> changes in
>>>>>>>>>>> the last few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> months ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at
>>>>> 04:47
>>>>>>> -0700,
>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should change
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> description, not
>>>>>>>>>>> the code. The intended behavior
>>>>> is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The properties setting
>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>> default, it can
>>>>>>>>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
>>>>>>>>> (application-wide
>>>>>>>>>>> setting), or in the context
>>>>>>> (screen-specific
>>>>>>>>> setting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker
>>>>> <ma...@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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010,
>>>>> at 9:49
>>>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>>>> hansbak@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author:
>>>>> hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
>>>>>>> Jul  8
>>>>>>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New
>>>>> Revision:
>>>>>>> 961684
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptions
>>>>> states:
>>>>>>> Widget
>>>>>>>>> boundary
>>>>>>>>>>> comments are enabled by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>> widgetVerbose true
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the context
>>>>>>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> widget.verbose=true in
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties.
>>>>>>>>>>> And not let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context override
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8
>>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6
>>>>> +21,7 @@
>>>>>>>>> package
>>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>> java.io.Serializable;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>> java.util.Map;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +import
>>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7
>>>>> +111,7
>>>>>>> @@
>>>>>>>>> public class
>>>>>>>>>>> ModelWidget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implements Seri
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      public
>>>>>>>>> static
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
>>>>>>>>> extends
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Object>
>>>>> context) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "widget.verbose"));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      if
>>>>>>>>>>> (context != null)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      if
>>>>>>>>>>> (result == false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> &&   context
>>>>> !=
>>>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>      String str =
>>>>>>>>> (String)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>      if (str !=
>>>>>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>      result =
>>>>>>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter:
>>>>> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter:
>>>>> http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>>>> services for
>>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>> services
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
>>>>> services for
>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
That is exactly what my change is doing,
only let the context override when the widget.properties parameter is
false: no widget comments unless enabled over web.xml

Regards,
Hans

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:56 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
> I can think of one.
> adding new components to a production site and not wanting to activated 
> for the whole application.
> 
> Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/8/2010 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 as you implemented
> > it?
> >
> > i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of view. The
> > disadvantages I already gave you.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all along.
> >>
> >> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the settings in Hans' local copy.
> >>
> >> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
> >>
> >> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I believe generates new components) has widget comments turned off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >>
> >> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 with it, which is usually the reason a
> >>> discussion starts and discovering such differences and
> >>> exploring possible resolutions is the point of discussions.
> >>>
> >>> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also noticed that
> >>> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on by default
> >>> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think that the
> >>> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In fact, I think
> >>> how it worked before the round of changes to this that were
> >>> done before the changes Hans made was the way to go, ie:
> >>> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
> >>> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments on) with a
> >>> configuration option to make it more production-friendly
> >>> (demarcation comments off).
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> You are missing the point - there was no issue. The
> >>> code worked fine.
> >>>>
> >>>> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct behavior as
> >>> designed was detailed in my first reply. If anyone needs
> >>> further information they can check the commit logs and the
> >>> related Jira issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he didn't
> >>> understand why it wasn't working the way it should. Instead
> >>> of asking for help on the mailing list, he arbitrarily
> >>> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the same thing
> >>> there would be a similar reaction from the community.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his local
> >>> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a mistake in
> >>> someone's local copy?
> >>>>
> >>>> If Hans wants to change the design, then that's fine -
> >>> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk is broken.
> >>> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and asked him
> >>> to unbreak it.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is so hard to understand about that?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Adrian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 it, but it seems like these messages
> >>> from
> >>>>> Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to
> >>> initiate a
> >>>>> discussion on the best way to go forward, and your
> >>> messages
> >>>>> are not discussing the issue and instead appealing
> >>> to some
> >>>>> sort of reason to not change how things are at
> >>> all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so
> >>> who is it
> >>>>> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -David
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hans,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There was no need for a compromise because
> >>> there was
> >>>>> no problem to begin with.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You just admitted the problem you were
> >>> experiencing
> >>>>> was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy.
> >>> Your
> >>>>> solution to that misconfiguration was to change
> >>> the trunk.
> >>>>> The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in
> >>> your
> >>>>> local copy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break
> >>> it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you revert your changes and properly
> >>> configure your
> >>>>> local copy, then everything will work as you
> >>> expect it to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community
> >>> of peers
> >>>>> and things will go smoother if you learn to follow
> >>> advice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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 times in the past.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> therefore i am not in for compromises any
> >>> more. I
> >>>>> would
> >>>>>>> like you to
> >>>>>>> remove the context code which enables the
> >>> override
> >>>>> in the
> >>>>>>> web.xml. It
> >>>>>>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated
> >>> for a
> >>>>> feature i
> >>>>>>> see no use.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It also causes to prohibit widgets
> >>> comments in the
> >>>>> example
> >>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>> which should show comments by default to
> >>> follow
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> principle to show
> >>>>>>> all possibilities in the system
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian
> >>> Crum
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hans,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's good that you took the time to
> >>> understand
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What would be acceptable is to revert
> >>> the
> >>>>> changes you
> >>>>>>> made so the original behavior is restored.
> >>> Your
> >>>>> first commit
> >>>>>>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken,
> >>> and
> >>>>> your second
> >>>>>>> commit disables a demonstration of how the
> >>> widget
> >>>>> comments
> >>>>>>> can be controlled.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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, 7:35
> >>> PM
> >>>>>>>>> Ok this is what happened:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4
> >>> weeks ago.
> >>>>> Some
> >>>>>>> time ago i
> >>>>>>>>> created a new
> >>>>>>>>> component in hot deploy using the
> >>> web.xml
> >>>>> from
> >>>>>>> the example
> >>>>>>>>> component. I
> >>>>>>>>> see the widget comments are not
> >>> generated.
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>> widget.properties and
> >>>>>>>>> see the parameter is set to true.
> >>> I used
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>>> feature
> >>>>>>>>> before and never
> >>>>>>>>> had a problem. I see that in
> >>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> >>>>>>>>> class the
> >>>>>>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true
> >>> to
> >>>>> false.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I not really see the benefit of
> >>> this code,
> >>>>> why
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>> somebody want to
> >>>>>>>>> change this setting by the
> >>> context
> >>>>> content?
> >>>>>>> However, as
> >>>>>>>>> long as the
> >>>>>>>>> parameter in widget properties
> >>> works, then
> >>>>> i am
> >>>>>>> fine. So i
> >>>>>>>>> made the
> >>>>>>>>> change that this parameter can
> >>> only be
> >>>>> overridden
> >>>>>>> if the
> >>>>>>>>> widget comments
> >>>>>>>>> are switched of.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I now see that the comments in
> >>> the
> >>>>> example
> >>>>>>> component are
> >>>>>>>>> switched off in
> >>>>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand
> >>> this,
> >>>>>>> especially the
> >>>>>>>>> example component
> >>>>>>>>> should show comments?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I avoid this confusion in the
> >>> future I
> >>>>> added a
> >>>>>>> comment in
> >>>>>>>>> widget.properties that only
> >>> 'false' can
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>> overridden and
> >>>>>>>>> commented out
> >>>>>>>>> the code in web.xml of the
> >>> example
> >>>>> component.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I expect this should be acceptable
> >>> to
> >>>>> everybody?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200,
> >>> Scott
> >>>>> Gray
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Two points:
> >>>>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is
> >>> just a
> >>>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code
> >>> is
> >>>>> perfectly
> >>>>>>> valid,
> >>>>>>>>> getting mad and making threats is
> >>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM,
> >>> Hans
> >>>>> Bakker
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> please check the code
> >>> before you
> >>>>>>> comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> i changed it because the
> >>> comments
> >>>>> were
> >>>>>>> not shown
> >>>>>>>>> by default anymore as
> >>>>>>>>>>> was originally.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If you go that far , i
> >>> will go so
> >>>>> far
> >>>>>>> and will
> >>>>>>>>> use my veto and revert
> >>>>>>>>>>> the code that added this
> >>> context
> >>>>> stuff?
> >>>>>>> 'true' in
> >>>>>>>>> the properties file
> >>>>>>>>>>> should always show the
> >>> widgets
> >>>>>>> comments
> >>>>>>>>> irrespective of the context.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> no wonder there aren't
> >>> any
> >>>>> significant
> >>>>>>> changes in
> >>>>>>>>> the last few
> >>>>>>>>>>> months ....
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at
> >>> 04:47
> >>>>> -0700,
> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should change
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> description, not
> >>>>>>>>> the code. The intended behavior
> >>> is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The properties setting
> >>> is the
> >>>>>>> default, it can
> >>>>>>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
> >>>>>>> (application-wide
> >>>>>>>>> setting), or in the context
> >>>>> (screen-specific
> >>>>>>> setting).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10,
> >>> Hans
> >>>>> Bakker
> >>>>>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker
> >>> <ma...@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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010,
> >>> at 9:49
> >>>>> PM,
> >>>>>>> hansbak@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author:
> >>> hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
> >>>>> Jul  8
> >>>>>>> 09:49:57
> >>>>>>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New
> >>> Revision:
> >>>>> 961684
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> >>> as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptions
> >>> states:
> >>>>> Widget
> >>>>>>> boundary
> >>>>>>>>> comments are enabled by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> >>> widgetVerbose true
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> the context
> >>>>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> widget.verbose=true in
> >>>>>>> widget.properties.
> >>>>>>>>> And not let the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> context override
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> widget.properties
> >>>>>>>>> setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ==============================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (original)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8
> >>> 09:49:57
> >>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6
> >>> +21,7 @@
> >>>>>>> package
> >>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>>> java.io.Serializable;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>> java.util.Map;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +import
> >>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7
> >>> +111,7
> >>>>> @@
> >>>>>>> public class
> >>>>>>>>> ModelWidget
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> implements Seri
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>      */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>     public
> >>>>>>> static
> >>>>>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> >>>>>>> extends
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Object>
> >>> context) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> result =
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> "widget.verbose"));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>     if
> >>>>>>>>> (context != null)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>     if
> >>>>>>>>> (result == false
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> &&  context
> >>> !=
> >>>>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>     String str =
> >>>>>>> (String)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>     if (str !=
> >>>>>>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>     result =
> >>>>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter:
> >>> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter:
> >>> http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>>>> Quality
> >>>>>>> services for
> >>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>> Quality
> >>>>> services
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> >>> services for
> >>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> >>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
I can think of one.
adding new components to a production site and not wanting to activated 
for the whole application.

Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/8/2010 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 as you implemented
> it?
>
> i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of view. The
> disadvantages I already gave you.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all along.
>>
>> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the settings in Hans' local copy.
>>
>> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
>>
>> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I believe generates new components) has widget comments turned off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 with it, which is usually the reason a
>>> discussion starts and discovering such differences and
>>> exploring possible resolutions is the point of discussions.
>>>
>>> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also noticed that
>>> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on by default
>>> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think that the
>>> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In fact, I think
>>> how it worked before the round of changes to this that were
>>> done before the changes Hans made was the way to go, ie:
>>> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
>>> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments on) with a
>>> configuration option to make it more production-friendly
>>> (demarcation comments off).
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> You are missing the point - there was no issue. The
>>> code worked fine.
>>>>
>>>> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct behavior as
>>> designed was detailed in my first reply. If anyone needs
>>> further information they can check the commit logs and the
>>> related Jira issue.
>>>>
>>>> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he didn't
>>> understand why it wasn't working the way it should. Instead
>>> of asking for help on the mailing list, he arbitrarily
>>> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the same thing
>>> there would be a similar reaction from the community.
>>>>
>>>> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his local
>>> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a mistake in
>>> someone's local copy?
>>>>
>>>> If Hans wants to change the design, then that's fine -
>>> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk is broken.
>>> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and asked him
>>> to unbreak it.
>>>>
>>>> What is so hard to understand about that?
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 it, but it seems like these messages
>>> from
>>>>> Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to
>>> initiate a
>>>>> discussion on the best way to go forward, and your
>>> messages
>>>>> are not discussing the issue and instead appealing
>>> to some
>>>>> sort of reason to not change how things are at
>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so
>>> who is it
>>>>> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no need for a compromise because
>>> there was
>>>>> no problem to begin with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just admitted the problem you were
>>> experiencing
>>>>> was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy.
>>> Your
>>>>> solution to that misconfiguration was to change
>>> the trunk.
>>>>> The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in
>>> your
>>>>> local copy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break
>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you revert your changes and properly
>>> configure your
>>>>> local copy, then everything will work as you
>>> expect it to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community
>>> of peers
>>>>> and things will go smoother if you learn to follow
>>> advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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 times in the past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> therefore i am not in for compromises any
>>> more. I
>>>>> would
>>>>>>> like you to
>>>>>>> remove the context code which enables the
>>> override
>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> web.xml. It
>>>>>>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated
>>> for a
>>>>> feature i
>>>>>>> see no use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It also causes to prohibit widgets
>>> comments in the
>>>>> example
>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>> which should show comments by default to
>>> follow
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> principle to show
>>>>>>> all possibilities in the system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian
>>> Crum
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's good that you took the time to
>>> understand
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would be acceptable is to revert
>>> the
>>>>> changes you
>>>>>>> made so the original behavior is restored.
>>> Your
>>>>> first commit
>>>>>>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken,
>>> and
>>>>> your second
>>>>>>> commit disables a demonstration of how the
>>> widget
>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> can be controlled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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, 7:35
>>> PM
>>>>>>>>> Ok this is what happened:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4
>>> weeks ago.
>>>>> Some
>>>>>>> time ago i
>>>>>>>>> created a new
>>>>>>>>> component in hot deploy using the
>>> web.xml
>>>>> from
>>>>>>> the example
>>>>>>>>> component. I
>>>>>>>>> see the widget comments are not
>>> generated.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties and
>>>>>>>>> see the parameter is set to true.
>>> I used
>>>>> this
>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>> before and never
>>>>>>>>> had a problem. I see that in
>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
>>>>>>>>> class the
>>>>>>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true
>>> to
>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I not really see the benefit of
>>> this code,
>>>>> why
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> somebody want to
>>>>>>>>> change this setting by the
>>> context
>>>>> content?
>>>>>>> However, as
>>>>>>>>> long as the
>>>>>>>>> parameter in widget properties
>>> works, then
>>>>> i am
>>>>>>> fine. So i
>>>>>>>>> made the
>>>>>>>>> change that this parameter can
>>> only be
>>>>> overridden
>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>>>> widget comments
>>>>>>>>> are switched of.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I now see that the comments in
>>> the
>>>>> example
>>>>>>> component are
>>>>>>>>> switched off in
>>>>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand
>>> this,
>>>>>>> especially the
>>>>>>>>> example component
>>>>>>>>> should show comments?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I avoid this confusion in the
>>> future I
>>>>> added a
>>>>>>> comment in
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties that only
>>> 'false' can
>>>>> be
>>>>>>> overridden and
>>>>>>>>> commented out
>>>>>>>>> the code in web.xml of the
>>> example
>>>>> component.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I expect this should be acceptable
>>> to
>>>>> everybody?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200,
>>> Scott
>>>>> Gray
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two points:
>>>>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is
>>> just a
>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code
>>> is
>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>> valid,
>>>>>>>>> getting mad and making threats is
>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM,
>>> Hans
>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> please check the code
>>> before you
>>>>>>> comment?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> i changed it because the
>>> comments
>>>>> were
>>>>>>> not shown
>>>>>>>>> by default anymore as
>>>>>>>>>>> was originally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you go that far , i
>>> will go so
>>>>> far
>>>>>>> and will
>>>>>>>>> use my veto and revert
>>>>>>>>>>> the code that added this
>>> context
>>>>> stuff?
>>>>>>> 'true' in
>>>>>>>>> the properties file
>>>>>>>>>>> should always show the
>>> widgets
>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>> irrespective of the context.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no wonder there aren't
>>> any
>>>>> significant
>>>>>>> changes in
>>>>>>>>> the last few
>>>>>>>>>>> months ....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at
>>> 04:47
>>>>> -0700,
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should change
>>> the
>>>>>>> description, not
>>>>>>>>> the code. The intended behavior
>>> is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The properties setting
>>> is the
>>>>>>> default, it can
>>>>>>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
>>>>>>> (application-wide
>>>>>>>>> setting), or in the context
>>>>> (screen-specific
>>>>>>> setting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10,
>>> Hans
>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker
>>> <ma...@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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010,
>>> at 9:49
>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>> hansbak@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author:
>>> hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
>>>>> Jul  8
>>>>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New
>>> Revision:
>>>>> 961684
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptions
>>> states:
>>>>> Widget
>>>>>>> boundary
>>>>>>>>> comments are enabled by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>> widgetVerbose true
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the context
>>>>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> widget.verbose=true in
>>>>>>> widget.properties.
>>>>>>>>> And not let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> context override
>>> the
>>>>>>> widget.properties
>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8
>>> 09:49:57
>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6
>>> +21,7 @@
>>>>>>> package
>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>> java.io.Serializable;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>> java.util.Map;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +import
>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>>>
>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7
>>> +111,7
>>>>> @@
>>>>>>> public class
>>>>>>>>> ModelWidget
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implements Seri
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>     public
>>>>>>> static
>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
>>>>>>> extends
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Object>
>>> context) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> result =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> "widget.verbose"));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>>>>     if
>>>>>>>>> (context != null)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>>>>     if
>>>>>>>>> (result == false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> &&  context
>>> !=
>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>     String str =
>>>>>>> (String)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>     if (str !=
>>>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>     result =
>>>>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter:
>>> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter:
>>> http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>> services for
>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>> Quality
>>>>> services
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
>>> services for
>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@Les7Arts.com>.
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 want to stay in this state:
1) We should improve the comment in the web.xml file in the Example
component 
2) The web.xml file in the Ressource component have been left behind, is
that really wanted?
3) We should improve
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBTECH/Apache+OFBiz+Technical+Production+Setup+Guide#ApacheOFBizTechnicalProductionSetupGuide-Widgetssetting

But finally I have the feeling that someone has threatened, pushed and
finally won... This is not the first time this happens...

Jacques
-- 
View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Re-svn-commit-r961684-ofbiz-trunk-framework-widget-src-org-ofbiz-widget-ModelWidget-java-tp2282062p2285190.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Same complaint here

I'm working on Ajax stuff in the jQuery branch and needed to parse a result. It would have been much easier and *especially reliable 
in future* if I could remove all comments in the screen.
The screen is the LookupDecorator and really it would be far better it would no render any widget boundaries in all case,
independently of any context, or any other considerations.

I think we really miss the possiblity to set widgetVerbose to false at the screen level, independently of any context, or any other 
considerations...

What's next, nothing, only rants?

Jacques

Scott Gray wrote:
> 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 false".  Didn't work, then I had to spend 5 minutes digging through the code to find out why and
> it turns out you can't set widgetVerbose to false at runtime if it is set to true in widet.properties and then I remembered this
> thread and cursed out loud.
>
> So I set it to false in widget.properties and restarted, which is a pain in the butt.
>
> 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 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 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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 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 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" 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 happy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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 still taking
>>>>>>>>> place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page
>>>>>>>>> compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to
>>>>>>>>> do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications. In this case you can turn off
>>>>>>>>> the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean
>>>>>>>>> wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>>>>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>> file to true?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>>>>>>>>> technical reasons
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by
>>>>>>>>>>> commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 false".  Didn't work, then I had to spend 5 minutes digging through the code to find out why and it turns out you can't set widgetVerbose to false at runtime if it is set to true in widet.properties and then I remembered this thread and cursed out loud.

So I set it to false in widget.properties and restarted, which is a pain in the butt.

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 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 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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 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 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" 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 happy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>>>>>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>>>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>>>>>>>> file to true?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>>>>>>>> technical reasons
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
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 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 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 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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 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 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" 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 happy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>>>>>>>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>>>>>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>> file to true?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>>>>>>>>>> technical reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>
>>
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 last time though, the only change needed to prevent Hans or anyone else having problems was to comment out the web.xml settings, it is really that simple.

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> 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 then use web.xml then use widget.verbose.default
> 3) in OFBiz trunk, by default #1 is commented out and #2 is set to true
> 4) as it was suggested, we remove the setting in web.xml from the template and example applications
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> 
>> 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 strange reason requires 50+ emails to resolve.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 10/07/2010, at 9:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 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 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 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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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 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 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" 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 happy.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>> file to true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 then use web.xml then use widget.verbose.default
3) in OFBiz trunk, by default #1 is commented out and #2 is set to true
4) as it was suggested, we remove the setting in web.xml from the template and example applications

Kind regards,

Jacopo

On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote:

> 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 strange reason requires 50+ emails to resolve.
> 
> Regards
> Scott
> 
> On 10/07/2010, at 9:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
>> 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 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 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 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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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 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 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" 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 happy.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>>>>>>>>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>>> file to true?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>>>>>>>>>>> technical reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 strange reason requires 50+ emails to resolve.

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 9:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> 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 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 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 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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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 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 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" 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 happy.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>>>>>>>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>>>>>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>> file to true?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>>>>>>>>>> technical reasons
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
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 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 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 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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >> 
> >> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 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 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 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" 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 happy.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 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 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
> >>>>>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> How does that sound?
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
> >>>>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
> >>>>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
> >>>>>>>>> file to true?
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
> >>>>>>>>> technical reasons
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 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 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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 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 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" 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 happy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>>>>>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>>>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>>>>>>>> file to true?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>>>>>>>> technical reasons
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
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 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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.
> 
> Regards
> Scott
> 
> On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
> > 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 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 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" 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 happy.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Scott
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 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 wrote:
> >>>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
> >>>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> How does that sound?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
> >>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
> >>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
> >>>>>>> file to true?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
> >>>>>>> technical reasons
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> >>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> >>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 clutching at straws and doing your best not to come to a reasonable solution.

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> 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 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 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" 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 happy.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>>>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>>>>>> file to true?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>>>>>> technical reasons
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
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 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 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" 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 happy.
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >> 
> >> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 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 wrote:
> >>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
> >>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
> >>>> 
> >>>> How does that sound?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Scott
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 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?
> >>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
> >>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
> >>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
> >>>>> file to true?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
> >>>>> technical reasons
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>>>> 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 widget.properties
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> >>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> >>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >>>>>>>>>> to say.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 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" 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 happy.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 wrote:
>>>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>>>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>>>> 
>>>> How does that sound?
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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?
>>>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>>>> file to true?
>>>>> 
>>>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>>>> technical reasons
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
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" 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 happy.
> 
> Regards
> Scott
> 
> On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
> > 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 wrote:
> >> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
> >> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
> >> 
> >> How does that sound?
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >> 
> >> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 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?
> >>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
> >>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
> >>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
> >>> file to true?
> >>> 
> >>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
> >>> technical reasons
> >>> 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hans
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >>>> 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 widget.properties
> >>>> 
> >>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
> >>>> 
> >>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Scott
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> >>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> >>>>>>> point of the original change.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >>>>>>>> to say.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 happy.

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 7:54 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> 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 wrote:
>> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
>> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
>> 
>> How does that sound?
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> 
>>> 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?
>>> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
>>> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
>>> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
>>> file to true?
>>> 
>>> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
>>> technical reasons
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> 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 widget.properties
>>>> 
>>>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>>>> 
>>>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
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 wrote:
> 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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
> In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.
> 
> How does that sound?
> 
> Regards
> Scott
> 
> On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> > 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
> > 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
> > displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
> > file to true?
> > 
> > business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
> > technical reasons
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> >> 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 widget.properties
> >> 
> >> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
> >> 
> >> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >> 
> >> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> >>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> >>>>> point of the original change.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >>>>>> to say.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> That's awfully combative.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 still taking place.  Let's say that as part of your testing you want to test your ecommerce page load times, sizes and effects of page compression.  Now to do that, you want to be able to turn off the widget boundary comments for ecommerce but you want to do it without effecting the other developers who are working on the back-end applications.
In this case you can turn off the boundary comments in the ecommerce webapp's web.xml file and still have all other applications display them.  I mean wow, what a wonderfully flexible system.

How does that sound?

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 7:17 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> 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?
> 1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
> 2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
> displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
> file to true?
> 
> business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
> technical reasons
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
>> 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 widget.properties
>> 
>> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
>> 
>> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>>>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>>>> 
>>>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>>>> 
>>>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>>>> point of the original change.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>>>> to say.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
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?
1. a capable technical use who does not find it "intuitive"
2. a business/hosting user who is wondering why the comments are not
displayed although he has set the parameter in the widget.properties
file to true?

business reasons are most(all?) of the time more important than the
technical reasons

Regards,
Hans


On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:49 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> 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 widget.properties
> 
> See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.
> 
> You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.
> 
> Regards
> Scott
> 
> On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
> > 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> >> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> >> 
> >> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> >> 
> >> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> >>> point of the original change.
> >>> 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hans
> >>> 
> >>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >>>> to say.
> >>>> 
> >>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >>>> 
> >>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >>>> 
> >>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >>>> 
> >>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >>>> 
> >>>> That's awfully combative.
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 widget.properties

See how clean that is?  I won't ever forget it because it makes sense.

You have yet to explain why the way things were before your change was harmful and couldn't have simply been solved by commenting out the web.xml setting in the trunk and adding some documenting comments.

Regards
Scott

On 10/07/2010, at 5:40 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> 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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
>> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
>> 
>> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
>> 
>> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
>>> point of the original change.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>>>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>>>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>>>> to say.
>>>> 
>>>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>>>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>>>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>>>> 
>>>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>>>> 
>>>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>>>> 
>>>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>>>> 
>>>> That's awfully combative.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
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 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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
> IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.
> 
> Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.
> 
> Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.
> 
> > 
> > I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> > point of the original change.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> > 
> > On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> >> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> >> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> >> to say.
> >> 
> >> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> >> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> >> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> >> 
> >>> so no use sending you more arguments.
> >> 
> >> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> >> 
> >>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> >> 
> >> That's awfully combative.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 setting in the web.xml of your webapp solved the problem you were having.
IMO we could easily solve this discussion by reverting your changes, commenting out the setting in the example and template webapps and then adding a comment explaining what it does.

Having the additional setting in the web.xml does no harm unless it is set to false and someone doesn't know about it.

Everything worked fine before but the problem was the lack of visibility of the settings.  We should make it so that the web.xml is only ever set to false on purpose, in custom deployments.

> 
> I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
> point of the original change.
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
>> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
>> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
>> to say.
>> 
>> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
>> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
>> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
>> 
>>> so no use sending you more arguments.
>> 
>> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
>> 
>>> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
>> 
>> That's awfully combative.
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Fri, 7/9/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@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 questions on the business level.
> Technically no
> problem, very good to have Adrian on the team.

I'm not sure what "long history" is being referred to here. There have been other occasions where your commit breaks code and I have pointed it out to you - the same as I do for any other committers/commits.

I have answered your questions ever since the first commit message appeared. I have done everything I can to explain to you how the code works and why. I have explained to you why your change was not necessary - and others have too.

>From my perspective, there is no need for me to provide a business need for the original design. That design was agreed upon by the community at the time and it met everyone's needs. The code fragment you changed has nothing to do with business needs - it is a low-level setting intended to be used as a tool for developers.

Requiring me to provide a "business need" for this developer's tool makes no more sense than requiring it for the framework/base component.

The bottom line is, you made a change that wasn't necessary. Three PMC members have asked you to revert it. If I was in your situation, I would revert it - to demonstrate a spirit of cooperation and community support.

-Adrian

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
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 Adrian on the team.

An example:
Provide a valid business reason why the system would not work with my
change. (he says i 'break' it, it is however working fin here.)

So to repeat again what i changed: The properties file can only be
overridden in the case when the widget comments are switched off. So
specific web applications can be switched on if required in the web.xml

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.

I also added documentation to support this, because that was also a week
point of the original change.

Regards,
Hans

On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 22:26 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> 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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
> that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
> you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
> to say.
> 
> (this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
> someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
> saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).
> 
> > so no use sending you more arguments.
> 
> That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?
> 
> > I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.
> 
> That's awfully combative.

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
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 understanding the first time, then you wouldn't need to state
that.  So, it's obvious that you feel that you weren't understood, so
you need to re-explain yourself.  Only you know what you were trying
to say.

(this is a general rule to follow; if you try to explain something to
someone, and they don't get it, saying it the same way again, or
saying you just don't get it, won't help anyone).

> so no use sending you more arguments.

That's a poor word.  Why are you sending arguments?

> I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.

That's awfully combative.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Adrian.

This is the second time you do not reply to what I write.

so no use sending you more arguments.

I will not revert my changes, of the reasons i gave you.

Regards,
Hans

On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 07:19 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Hans,
> 
> My behavior is not the issue. You made a change that wasn't necessary. I 
> have tried to explain that to you, but you refuse to listen. Instead, 
> you issue threats and insults.
> 
> The context has nothing to do with the problem you encountered. It was a 
> configuration error in your local copy - you have admitted that.
> 
> Please revert your changes, and then we can discuss the idea of changing 
> the settings in the Example component.
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> On 7/9/2010 12:10 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> > I am sorry Adrian,
> >
> > this is a perfect example of your behavior.
> > This was a request in 2007. introducing widget comments, an excellent
> > request. How can it be, you added this context stuff on may 20 2010?
> > Even on the original request people do not want the web.xml
> > configuration.
> >
> > Whatever it is:
> > if widget.properties widgetverbose = true  i want to see widgets
> > comments enabled everywhere. When false i can accept a compromise it can
> > be overridden by web.xml.
> >
> > However you are not in for compromises so i want to have this override
> > taken out completely, I still did not hear a business benefit for it it
> > it makes the system complicated for apparently no reason.
> >
> > Regards.
> > Hans
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:46 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> Hans,
> >>
> >> It would be preferable if you would research this information for yourself, but I am willing to oblige:
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1318
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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 widgets.properties and web.xml as
> >>> you implemented
> >>> it?
> >>>
> >>> i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of
> >>> view. The
> >>> disadvantages I already gave you.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hans
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all
> >>> along.
> >>>>
> >>>> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new
> >>> project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the
> >>> Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in
> >>> the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the
> >>> settings in Hans' local copy.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example
> >>> component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple
> >>> the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
> >>>>
> >>>> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I
> >>> believe generates new components) has widget comments turned
> >>> off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Adrian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 with it, which is usually the
> >>> reason a
> >>>>> discussion starts and discovering such
> >>> differences and
> >>>>> exploring possible resolutions is the point of
> >>> discussions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also
> >>> noticed that
> >>>>> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on
> >>> by default
> >>>>> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think
> >>> that the
> >>>>> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In
> >>> fact, I think
> >>>>> how it worked before the round of changes to this
> >>> that were
> >>>>> done before the changes Hans made was the way to
> >>> go, ie:
> >>>>> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
> >>>>> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments
> >>> on) with a
> >>>>> configuration option to make it more
> >>> production-friendly
> >>>>> (demarcation comments off).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -David
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are missing the point - there was no
> >>> issue. The
> >>>>> code worked fine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct
> >>> behavior as
> >>>>> designed was detailed in my first reply. If
> >>> anyone needs
> >>>>> further information they can check the commit
> >>> logs and the
> >>>>> related Jira issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he
> >>> didn't
> >>>>> understand why it wasn't working the way it
> >>> should. Instead
> >>>>> of asking for help on the mailing list, he
> >>> arbitrarily
> >>>>> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the
> >>> same thing
> >>>>> there would be a similar reaction from the
> >>> community.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his
> >>> local
> >>>>> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a
> >>> mistake in
> >>>>> someone's local copy?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If Hans wants to change the design, then
> >>> that's fine -
> >>>>> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk
> >>> is broken.
> >>>>> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and
> >>> asked him
> >>>>> to unbreak it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What is so hard to understand about that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 it, but it seems like
> >>> these messages
> >>>>> from
> >>>>>>> Hans are presenting the issue and
> >>> attempting to
> >>>>> initiate a
> >>>>>>> discussion on the best way to go
> >>> forward, and your
> >>>>> messages
> >>>>>>> are not discussing the issue and instead
> >>> appealing
> >>>>> to some
> >>>>>>> sort of reason to not change how things
> >>> are at
> >>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way
> >>> cooperation, so
> >>>>> who is it
> >>>>>>> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -David
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hans,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There was no need for a compromise
> >>> because
> >>>>> there was
> >>>>>>> no problem to begin with.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You just admitted the problem you
> >>> were
> >>>>> experiencing
> >>>>>>> was due to a misconfiguration in your
> >>> local copy.
> >>>>> Your
> >>>>>>> solution to that misconfiguration was to
> >>> change
> >>>>> the trunk.
> >>>>>>> The trunk was not the problem - the
> >>> problem was in
> >>>>> your
> >>>>>>> local copy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please
> >>> un-break
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you revert your changes and
> >>> properly
> >>>>> configure your
> >>>>>>> local copy, then everything will work as
> >>> you
> >>>>> expect it to.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a
> >>> community
> >>>>> of peers
> >>>>>>> and things will go smoother if you learn
> >>> to follow
> >>>>> advice.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
> >>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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 times in
> >>> the past.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> therefore i am not in for
> >>> compromises any
> >>>>> more. I
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>> like you to
> >>>>>>>>> remove the context code which
> >>> enables the
> >>>>> override
> >>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>>>> web.xml. It
> >>>>>>>>> makes the system unnecessarily
> >>> complicated
> >>>>> for a
> >>>>>>> feature i
> >>>>>>>>> see no use.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It also causes to prohibit
> >>> widgets
> >>>>> comments in the
> >>>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>>>> which should show comments by
> >>> default to
> >>>>> follow
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> principle to show
> >>>>>>>>> all possibilities in the system
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00
> >>> -0700, Adrian
> >>>>> Crum
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hans,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's good that you took the
> >>> time to
> >>>>> understand
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What would be acceptable is
> >>> to revert
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> changes you
> >>>>>>>>> made so the original behavior is
> >>> restored.
> >>>>> Your
> >>>>>>> first commit
> >>>>>>>>> tried to fix something that
> >>> wasn't broken,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> your second
> >>>>>>>>> commit disables a demonstration
> >>> of how the
> >>>>> widget
> >>>>>>> comments
> >>>>>>>>> can be controlled.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
> >>> Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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, 7:35
> >>>>> PM
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ok this is what
> >>> happened:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from
> >>> about 3-4
> >>>>> weeks ago.
> >>>>>>> Some
> >>>>>>>>> time ago i
> >>>>>>>>>>> created a new
> >>>>>>>>>>> component in hot deploy
> >>> using the
> >>>>> web.xml
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>> the example
> >>>>>>>>>>> component. I
> >>>>>>>>>>> see the widget comments
> >>> are not
> >>>>> generated.
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties and
> >>>>>>>>>>> see the parameter is set
> >>> to true.
> >>>>> I used
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> feature
> >>>>>>>>>>> before and never
> >>>>>>>>>>> had a problem. I see
> >>> that in
> >>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> >>>>>>>>>>> class the
> >>>>>>>>>>> 'context stuff' is
> >>> changing true
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> false.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I not really see the
> >>> benefit of
> >>>>> this code,
> >>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>> somebody want to
> >>>>>>>>>>> change this setting by
> >>> the
> >>>>> context
> >>>>>>> content?
> >>>>>>>>> However, as
> >>>>>>>>>>> long as the
> >>>>>>>>>>> parameter in widget
> >>> properties
> >>>>> works, then
> >>>>>>> i am
> >>>>>>>>> fine. So i
> >>>>>>>>>>> made the
> >>>>>>>>>>> change that this
> >>> parameter can
> >>>>> only be
> >>>>>>> overridden
> >>>>>>>>> if the
> >>>>>>>>>>> widget comments
> >>>>>>>>>>> are switched of.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I now see that the
> >>> comments in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>>> component are
> >>>>>>>>>>> switched off in
> >>>>>>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not
> >>> understand
> >>>>> this,
> >>>>>>>>> especially the
> >>>>>>>>>>> example component
> >>>>>>>>>>> should show comments?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I avoid this confusion
> >>> in the
> >>>>> future I
> >>>>>>> added a
> >>>>>>>>> comment in
> >>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties that
> >>> only
> >>>>> 'false' can
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>> overridden and
> >>>>>>>>>>> commented out
> >>>>>>>>>>> the code in web.xml of
> >>> the
> >>>>> example
> >>>>>>> component.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I expect this should be
> >>> acceptable
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> everybody?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at
> >>> 00:28 +1200,
> >>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>> Gray
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Two points:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down,
> >>> this is
> >>>>> just a
> >>>>>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look
> >>> at the code
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>> perfectly
> >>>>>>>>> valid,
> >>>>>>>>>>> getting mad and making
> >>> threats is
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at
> >>> 12:17 AM,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>> Bakker
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> please check the
> >>> code
> >>>>> before you
> >>>>>>>>> comment?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> i changed it
> >>> because the
> >>>>> comments
> >>>>>>> were
> >>>>>>>>> not shown
> >>>>>>>>>>> by default anymore as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was originally.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you go that
> >>> far , i
> >>>>> will go so
> >>>>>>> far
> >>>>>>>>> and will
> >>>>>>>>>>> use my veto and revert
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the code that
> >>> added this
> >>>>> context
> >>>>>>> stuff?
> >>>>>>>>> 'true' in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the properties file
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should always
> >>> show the
> >>>>> widgets
> >>>>>>>>> comments
> >>>>>>>>>>> irrespective of the
> >>> context.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> no wonder there
> >>> aren't
> >>>>> any
> >>>>>>> significant
> >>>>>>>>> changes in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the last few
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> months ....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu,
> >>> 2010-07-08 at
> >>>>> 04:47
> >>>>>>> -0700,
> >>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you
> >>> should change
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> description, not
> >>>>>>>>>>> the code. The intended
> >>> behavior
> >>>>> is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>> properties setting
> >>>>> is the
> >>>>>>>>> default, it can
> >>>>>>>>>>> be overridden in the
> >>> web.xml file
> >>>>>>>>> (application-wide
> >>>>>>>>>>> setting), or in the
> >>> context
> >>>>>>> (screen-specific
> >>>>>>>>> setting).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu,
> >>> 7/8/10,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>> Bakker
> >>>>>>>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From:
> >>> Hans Bakker
> >>>>> <ma...@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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
> >>> 8/07/2010,
> >>>>> at 9:49
> >>>>>>> PM,
> >>>>>>>>> hansbak@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Author:
> >>>>> hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Date: Thu
> >>>>>>> Jul  8
> >>>>>>>>> 09:49:57
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> New
> >>>>> Revision:
> >>>>>>> 961684
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Log:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> >>>>> as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> descriptions
> >>>>> states:
> >>>>>>> Widget
> >>>>>>>>> boundary
> >>>>>>>>>>> comments are enabled by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
> >>>>> widgetVerbose true
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> the context
> >>>>>>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> widget.verbose=true in
> >>>>>>>>> widget.properties.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And not let the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
> >>> override
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> widget.properties
> >>>>>>>>>>> setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ==============================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> (original)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> +++
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu
> >>> Jul  8
> >>>>> 09:49:57
> >>>>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> @@ -21,6
> >>>>> +21,7 @@
> >>>>>>>>> package
> >>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>>>> java.io.Serializable;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>> java.util.Map;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> +import
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> import
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> @@ -110,7
> >>>>> +111,7
> >>>>>>> @@
> >>>>>>>>> public class
> >>>>>>>>>>> ModelWidget
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> implements Seri
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>      */
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     public
> >>>>>>>>> static
> >>>>>>>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> >>>>>>>>> extends
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Object>
> >>>>> context) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
> >>> =
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> "widget.verbose"));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>     if
> >>>>>>>>>>> (context != null)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> +
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>     if
> >>>>>>>>>>> (result == false
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> &&  context
> >>>>> !=
> >>>>>>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>     String str =
> >>>>>>>>> (String)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>     if (str !=
> >>>>>>>>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>     result =
> >>>>>>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> >>> twitter:
> >>>>> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself
> >>> on twitter:
> >>>>> http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>>>>>> Quality
> >>>>>>>>> services for
> >>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on
> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>>>> Quality
> >>>>>>> services
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> >>> Quality
> >>>>> services for
> >>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> >>> services for
> >>>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
Hans,

My behavior is not the issue. You made a change that wasn't necessary. I 
have tried to explain that to you, but you refuse to listen. Instead, 
you issue threats and insults.

The context has nothing to do with the problem you encountered. It was a 
configuration error in your local copy - you have admitted that.

Please revert your changes, and then we can discuss the idea of changing 
the settings in the Example component.

-Adrian

On 7/9/2010 12:10 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> I am sorry Adrian,
>
> this is a perfect example of your behavior.
> This was a request in 2007. introducing widget comments, an excellent
> request. How can it be, you added this context stuff on may 20 2010?
> Even on the original request people do not want the web.xml
> configuration.
>
> Whatever it is:
> if widget.properties widgetverbose = true  i want to see widgets
> comments enabled everywhere. When false i can accept a compromise it can
> be overridden by web.xml.
>
> However you are not in for compromises so i want to have this override
> taken out completely, I still did not hear a business benefit for it it
> it makes the system complicated for apparently no reason.
>
> Regards.
> Hans
>
>
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:46 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> Hans,
>>
>> It would be preferable if you would research this information for yourself, but I am willing to oblige:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1318
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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 widgets.properties and web.xml as
>>> you implemented
>>> it?
>>>
>>> i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of
>>> view. The
>>> disadvantages I already gave you.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all
>>> along.
>>>>
>>>> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new
>>> project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the
>>> Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in
>>> the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the
>>> settings in Hans' local copy.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example
>>> component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple
>>> the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
>>>>
>>>> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I
>>> believe generates new components) has widget comments turned
>>> off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 with it, which is usually the
>>> reason a
>>>>> discussion starts and discovering such
>>> differences and
>>>>> exploring possible resolutions is the point of
>>> discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also
>>> noticed that
>>>>> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on
>>> by default
>>>>> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think
>>> that the
>>>>> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In
>>> fact, I think
>>>>> how it worked before the round of changes to this
>>> that were
>>>>> done before the changes Hans made was the way to
>>> go, ie:
>>>>> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
>>>>> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments
>>> on) with a
>>>>> configuration option to make it more
>>> production-friendly
>>>>> (demarcation comments off).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are missing the point - there was no
>>> issue. The
>>>>> code worked fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct
>>> behavior as
>>>>> designed was detailed in my first reply. If
>>> anyone needs
>>>>> further information they can check the commit
>>> logs and the
>>>>> related Jira issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he
>>> didn't
>>>>> understand why it wasn't working the way it
>>> should. Instead
>>>>> of asking for help on the mailing list, he
>>> arbitrarily
>>>>> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the
>>> same thing
>>>>> there would be a similar reaction from the
>>> community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his
>>> local
>>>>> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a
>>> mistake in
>>>>> someone's local copy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Hans wants to change the design, then
>>> that's fine -
>>>>> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk
>>> is broken.
>>>>> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and
>>> asked him
>>>>> to unbreak it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is so hard to understand about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones<de...@me.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: David E Jones<de...@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 it, but it seems like
>>> these messages
>>>>> from
>>>>>>> Hans are presenting the issue and
>>> attempting to
>>>>> initiate a
>>>>>>> discussion on the best way to go
>>> forward, and your
>>>>> messages
>>>>>>> are not discussing the issue and instead
>>> appealing
>>>>> to some
>>>>>>> sort of reason to not change how things
>>> are at
>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way
>>> cooperation, so
>>>>> who is it
>>>>>>> that you want Hans to cooperate with?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was no need for a compromise
>>> because
>>>>> there was
>>>>>>> no problem to begin with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just admitted the problem you
>>> were
>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>> was due to a misconfiguration in your
>>> local copy.
>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> solution to that misconfiguration was to
>>> change
>>>>> the trunk.
>>>>>>> The trunk was not the problem - the
>>> problem was in
>>>>> your
>>>>>>> local copy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please
>>> un-break
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you revert your changes and
>>> properly
>>>>> configure your
>>>>>>> local copy, then everything will work as
>>> you
>>>>> expect it to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a
>>> community
>>>>> of peers
>>>>>>> and things will go smoother if you learn
>>> to follow
>>>>> advice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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 times in
>>> the past.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> therefore i am not in for
>>> compromises any
>>>>> more. I
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> like you to
>>>>>>>>> remove the context code which
>>> enables the
>>>>> override
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> web.xml. It
>>>>>>>>> makes the system unnecessarily
>>> complicated
>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> feature i
>>>>>>>>> see no use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also causes to prohibit
>>> widgets
>>>>> comments in the
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>> which should show comments by
>>> default to
>>>>> follow
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> principle to show
>>>>>>>>> all possibilities in the system
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00
>>> -0700, Adrian
>>>>> Crum
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's good that you took the
>>> time to
>>>>> understand
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What would be acceptable is
>>> to revert
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> changes you
>>>>>>>>> made so the original behavior is
>>> restored.
>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> first commit
>>>>>>>>> tried to fix something that
>>> wasn't broken,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> your second
>>>>>>>>> commit disables a demonstration
>>> of how the
>>>>> widget
>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>> can be controlled.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
>>> Bakker<ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker<ma...@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, 7:35
>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok this is what
>>> happened:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from
>>> about 3-4
>>>>> weeks ago.
>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>>>> time ago i
>>>>>>>>>>> created a new
>>>>>>>>>>> component in hot deploy
>>> using the
>>>>> web.xml
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> the example
>>>>>>>>>>> component. I
>>>>>>>>>>> see the widget comments
>>> are not
>>>>> generated.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties and
>>>>>>>>>>> see the parameter is set
>>> to true.
>>>>> I used
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>> before and never
>>>>>>>>>>> had a problem. I see
>>> that in
>>>>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
>>>>>>>>>>> class the
>>>>>>>>>>> 'context stuff' is
>>> changing true
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I not really see the
>>> benefit of
>>>>> this code,
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> somebody want to
>>>>>>>>>>> change this setting by
>>> the
>>>>> context
>>>>>>> content?
>>>>>>>>> However, as
>>>>>>>>>>> long as the
>>>>>>>>>>> parameter in widget
>>> properties
>>>>> works, then
>>>>>>> i am
>>>>>>>>> fine. So i
>>>>>>>>>>> made the
>>>>>>>>>>> change that this
>>> parameter can
>>>>> only be
>>>>>>> overridden
>>>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>>>>>> widget comments
>>>>>>>>>>> are switched of.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I now see that the
>>> comments in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>> component are
>>>>>>>>>>> switched off in
>>>>>>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not
>>> understand
>>>>> this,
>>>>>>>>> especially the
>>>>>>>>>>> example component
>>>>>>>>>>> should show comments?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I avoid this confusion
>>> in the
>>>>> future I
>>>>>>> added a
>>>>>>>>> comment in
>>>>>>>>>>> widget.properties that
>>> only
>>>>> 'false' can
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> overridden and
>>>>>>>>>>> commented out
>>>>>>>>>>> the code in web.xml of
>>> the
>>>>> example
>>>>>>> component.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I expect this should be
>>> acceptable
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> everybody?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at
>>> 00:28 +1200,
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> Gray
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two points:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down,
>>> this is
>>>>> just a
>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look
>>> at the code
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>>> valid,
>>>>>>>>>>> getting mad and making
>>> threats is
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at
>>> 12:17 AM,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please check the
>>> code
>>>>> before you
>>>>>>>>> comment?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i changed it
>>> because the
>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> not shown
>>>>>>>>>>> by default anymore as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was originally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you go that
>>> far , i
>>>>> will go so
>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>> and will
>>>>>>>>>>> use my veto and revert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code that
>>> added this
>>>>> context
>>>>>>> stuff?
>>>>>>>>> 'true' in
>>>>>>>>>>> the properties file
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always
>>> show the
>>>>> widgets
>>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>>>> irrespective of the
>>> context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no wonder there
>>> aren't
>>>>> any
>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>>> changes in
>>>>>>>>>>> the last few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> months ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu,
>>> 2010-07-08 at
>>>>> 04:47
>>>>>>> -0700,
>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you
>>> should change
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> description, not
>>>>>>>>>>> the code. The intended
>>> behavior
>>>>> is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>> properties setting
>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>> default, it can
>>>>>>>>>>> be overridden in the
>>> web.xml file
>>>>>>>>> (application-wide
>>>>>>>>>>> setting), or in the
>>> context
>>>>>>> (screen-specific
>>>>>>>>> setting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu,
>>> 7/8/10,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>> Bakker
>>>>>>>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From:
>>> Hans Bakker
>>>>> <ma...@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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>> 8/07/2010,
>>>>> at 9:49
>>>>>>> PM,
>>>>>>>>> hansbak@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Author:
>>>>> hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Date: Thu
>>>>>>> Jul  8
>>>>>>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> New
>>>>> Revision:
>>>>>>> 961684
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> descriptions
>>>>> states:
>>>>>>> Widget
>>>>>>>>> boundary
>>>>>>>>>>> comments are enabled by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>> widgetVerbose true
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the context
>>>>>>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> widget.verbose=true in
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties.
>>>>>>>>>>> And not let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
>>> override
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties
>>>>>>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> +++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu
>>> Jul  8
>>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> @@ -21,6
>>>>> +21,7 @@
>>>>>>>>> package
>>>>>>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>>>> java.io.Serializable;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>> java.util.Map;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> +import
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> import
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> @@ -110,7
>>>>> +111,7
>>>>>>> @@
>>>>>>>>> public class
>>>>>>>>>>> ModelWidget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> implements Seri
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      */
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     public
>>>>>>>>> static
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
>>>>>>>>> extends
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Object>
>>>>> context) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>> =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "widget.verbose"));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     if
>>>>>>>>>>> (context != null)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     if
>>>>>>>>>>> (result == false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> &&  context
>>>>> !=
>>>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>     String str =
>>>>>>>>> (String)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>     if (str !=
>>>>>>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>     result =
>>>>>>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
>>> twitter:
>>>>> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself
>>> on twitter:
>>>>> http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>>>> services for
>>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>> services
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>>> Quality
>>>>> services for
>>>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
>>> services for
>>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
I am sorry Adrian,

this is a perfect example of your behavior.
This was a request in 2007. introducing widget comments, an excellent
request. How can it be, you added this context stuff on may 20 2010?
Even on the original request people do not want the web.xml
configuration.

Whatever it is:
if widget.properties widgetverbose = true  i want to see widgets
comments enabled everywhere. When false i can accept a compromise it can
be overridden by web.xml. 

However you are not in for compromises so i want to have this override
taken out completely, I still did not hear a business benefit for it it
it makes the system complicated for apparently no reason.

Regards.
Hans


On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:46 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Hans,
> 
> It would be preferable if you would research this information for yourself, but I am willing to oblige:
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1318
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 widgets.properties and web.xml as
> > you implemented
> > it?
> > 
> > i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of
> > view. The
> > disadvantages I already gave you.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > > Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all
> > along.
> > > 
> > > If Hans copied the Example component to create a new
> > project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the
> > Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in
> > the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the
> > settings in Hans' local copy.
> > > 
> > > If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example
> > component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple
> > the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
> > > 
> > > Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I
> > believe generates new components) has widget comments turned
> > off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
> > > 
> > > -Adrian
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: David E Jones <de...@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 with it, which is usually the
> > reason a
> > > > discussion starts and discovering such
> > differences and
> > > > exploring possible resolutions is the point of
> > discussions.
> > > > 
> > > > For my part, getting back to the issue, I also
> > noticed that
> > > > the widget demarcation comments were no longer on
> > by default
> > > > and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think
> > that the
> > > > changes Hans made are the right way to go. In
> > fact, I think
> > > > how it worked before the round of changes to this
> > that were
> > > > done before the changes Hans made was the way to
> > go, ie:
> > > > like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
> > > > developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments
> > on) with a
> > > > configuration option to make it more
> > production-friendly
> > > > (demarcation comments off).
> > > > 
> > > > -David
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > David,
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are missing the point - there was no
> > issue. The
> > > > code worked fine.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I *have* addressed the issue. The correct
> > behavior as
> > > > designed was detailed in my first reply. If
> > anyone needs
> > > > further information they can check the commit
> > logs and the
> > > > related Jira issue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he
> > didn't
> > > > understand why it wasn't working the way it
> > should. Instead
> > > > of asking for help on the mailing list, he
> > arbitrarily
> > > > changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the
> > same thing
> > > > there would be a similar reaction from the
> > community.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his
> > local
> > > > copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a
> > mistake in
> > > > someone's local copy?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If Hans wants to change the design, then
> > that's fine -
> > > > lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk
> > is broken.
> > > > Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and
> > asked him
> > > > to unbreak it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is so hard to understand about that?
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Adrian
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >> From: David E Jones <de...@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 it, but it seems like
> > these messages
> > > > from
> > > > >> Hans are presenting the issue and
> > attempting to
> > > > initiate a
> > > > >> discussion on the best way to go
> > forward, and your
> > > > messages
> > > > >> are not discussing the issue and instead
> > appealing
> > > > to some
> > > > >> sort of reason to not change how things
> > are at
> > > > all.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> This doesn't seem to be a two-way
> > cooperation, so
> > > > who is it
> > > > >> that you want Hans to cooperate with? 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> -David
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum
> > wrote:
> > > > >> 
> > > > >>> Hans,
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> There was no need for a compromise
> > because
> > > > there was
> > > > >> no problem to begin with.
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> You just admitted the problem you
> > were
> > > > experiencing
> > > > >> was due to a misconfiguration in your
> > local copy.
> > > > Your
> > > > >> solution to that misconfiguration was to
> > change
> > > > the trunk.
> > > > >> The trunk was not the problem - the
> > problem was in
> > > > your
> > > > >> local copy.
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please
> > un-break
> > > > it.
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> If you revert your changes and
> > properly
> > > > configure your
> > > > >> local copy, then everything will work as
> > you
> > > > expect it to.
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a
> > community
> > > > of peers
> > > > >> and things will go smoother if you learn
> > to follow
> > > > advice.
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> -Adrian
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
> > <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in
> > the past.
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>> therefore i am not in for
> > compromises any
> > > > more. I
> > > > >> would
> > > > >>>> like you to
> > > > >>>> remove the context code which
> > enables the
> > > > override
> > > > >> in the
> > > > >>>> web.xml. It
> > > > >>>> makes the system unnecessarily
> > complicated
> > > > for a
> > > > >> feature i
> > > > >>>> see no use. 
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>> It also causes to prohibit
> > widgets
> > > > comments in the
> > > > >> example
> > > > >>>> component
> > > > >>>> which should show comments by
> > default to
> > > > follow
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>> principle to show
> > > > >>>> all possibilities in the system
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>> Hans
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00
> > -0700, Adrian
> > > > Crum
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> Hans,
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> It's good that you took the
> > time to
> > > > understand
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>> problem.
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> What would be acceptable is
> > to revert
> > > > the
> > > > >> changes you
> > > > >>>> made so the original behavior is
> > restored.
> > > > Your
> > > > >> first commit
> > > > >>>> tried to fix something that
> > wasn't broken,
> > > > and
> > > > >> your second
> > > > >>>> commit disables a demonstration
> > of how the
> > > > widget
> > > > >> comments
> > > > >>>> can be controlled.
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> -Adrian
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
> > Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35
> > > > PM
> > > > >>>>>> Ok this is what
> > happened:
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from
> > about 3-4
> > > > weeks ago.
> > > > >> Some
> > > > >>>> time ago i
> > > > >>>>>> created a new
> > > > >>>>>> component in hot deploy
> > using the
> > > > web.xml
> > > > >> from
> > > > >>>> the example
> > > > >>>>>> component. I
> > > > >>>>>> see the widget comments
> > are not
> > > > generated.
> > > > >> I
> > > > >>>> check
> > > > >>>>>> widget.properties and
> > > > >>>>>> see the parameter is set
> > to true.
> > > > I used
> > > > >> this
> > > > >>>> feature
> > > > >>>>>> before and never
> > > > >>>>>> had a problem. I see
> > that in
> > > > >>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> > > > >>>>>> class the
> > > > >>>>>> 'context stuff' is
> > changing true
> > > > to
> > > > >> false.
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> I not really see the
> > benefit of
> > > > this code,
> > > > >> why
> > > > >>>> would
> > > > >>>>>> somebody want to
> > > > >>>>>> change this setting by
> > the
> > > > context
> > > > >> content?
> > > > >>>> However, as
> > > > >>>>>> long as the
> > > > >>>>>> parameter in widget
> > properties
> > > > works, then
> > > > >> i am
> > > > >>>> fine. So i
> > > > >>>>>> made the
> > > > >>>>>> change that this
> > parameter can
> > > > only be
> > > > >> overridden
> > > > >>>> if the
> > > > >>>>>> widget comments
> > > > >>>>>> are switched of.
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> I now see that the
> > comments in
> > > > the
> > > > >> example
> > > > >>>> component are
> > > > >>>>>> switched off in
> > > > >>>>>> web.xml? I also do not
> > understand
> > > > this,
> > > > >>>> especially the
> > > > >>>>>> example component
> > > > >>>>>> should show comments?
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> I avoid this confusion
> > in the
> > > > future I
> > > > >> added a
> > > > >>>> comment in
> > > > >>>>>> widget.properties that
> > only
> > > > 'false' can
> > > > >> be
> > > > >>>> overridden and
> > > > >>>>>> commented out
> > > > >>>>>> the code in web.xml of
> > the
> > > > example
> > > > >> component.
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> I expect this should be
> > acceptable
> > > > to
> > > > >> everybody?
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>> Hans
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at
> > 00:28 +1200,
> > > > Scott
> > > > >> Gray
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> Hi Hans,
> > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>> Two points:
> > > > >>>>>>> 1.  Calm down,
> > this is
> > > > just a
> > > > >>>> discussion. 
> > > > >>>>>> Telling Adrian to look
> > at the code
> > > > is
> > > > >> perfectly
> > > > >>>> valid,
> > > > >>>>>> getting mad and making
> > threats is
> > > > not
> > > > >>>>>>> 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.
> > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >>>>>>> Scott
> > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at
> > 12:17 AM,
> > > > Hans
> > > > >> Bakker
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>> please check the
> > code
> > > > before you
> > > > >>>> comment?
> > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>> i changed it
> > because the
> > > > comments
> > > > >> were
> > > > >>>> not shown
> > > > >>>>>> by default anymore as
> > > > >>>>>>>> was originally.
> > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>> If you go that
> > far , i
> > > > will go so
> > > > >> far
> > > > >>>> and will
> > > > >>>>>> use my veto and revert
> > > > >>>>>>>> the code that
> > added this
> > > > context
> > > > >> stuff?
> > > > >>>> 'true' in
> > > > >>>>>> the properties file
> > > > >>>>>>>> should always
> > show the
> > > > widgets
> > > > >>>> comments
> > > > >>>>>> irrespective of the
> > context.
> > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>> no wonder there
> > aren't
> > > > any
> > > > >> significant
> > > > >>>> changes in
> > > > >>>>>> the last few
> > > > >>>>>>>> months ....
> > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hans
> > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu,
> > 2010-07-08 at
> > > > 04:47
> > > > >> -0700,
> > > > >>>> Adrian Crum
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Then you
> > should change
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> description, not
> > > > >>>>>> the code. The intended
> > behavior
> > > > is:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>> The
> > properties setting
> > > > is the
> > > > >>>> default, it can
> > > > >>>>>> be overridden in the
> > web.xml file
> > > > >>>> (application-wide
> > > > >>>>>> setting), or in the
> > context
> > > > >> (screen-specific
> > > > >>>> setting).
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>> --- On Thu,
> > 7/8/10,
> > > > Hans
> > > > >> Bakker
> > > > >>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> From:
> > Hans Bakker
> > > > <ma...@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.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 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
> > > > >> 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
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On
> > 8/07/2010,
> > > > at 9:49
> > > > >> PM,
> > > > >>>> hansbak@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Author:
> > > > hansbak
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Date: Thu
> > > > >> Jul  8
> > > > >>>> 09:49:57
> > > > >>>>>> 2010
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > New
> > > > Revision:
> > > > >> 961684
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Log:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > make
> > > > >>>>>>
> > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> > > > as the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > descriptions
> > > > states:
> > > > >> Widget
> > > > >>>> boundary
> > > > >>>>>> comments are enabled by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > > widgetVerbose true
> > > > >> in
> > > > >>>> the context
> > > > >>>>>> Map, OR by setting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > widget.verbose=true in
> > > > >>>> widget.properties.
> > > > >>>>>> And not let the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> context
> > override
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> widget.properties
> > > > >>>>>> setting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Modified:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Modified:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ==============================================================================
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > ---
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > (original)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > +++
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thu
> > Jul  8
> > > > 09:49:57
> > > > >> 2010
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > @@ -21,6
> > > > +21,7 @@
> > > > >>>> package
> > > > >>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >>>> java.io.Serializable;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >> java.util.Map;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > +import
> > > > >>>>>>
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >>>>>>
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > import
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > @@ -110,7
> > > > +111,7
> > > > >> @@
> > > > >>>> public class
> > > > >>>>>> ModelWidget
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > implements Seri
> > > >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>   
> > > > >>>>     */
> > > >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>  
> > > > >>    public
> > > > >>>> static
> > > > >>>>>> boolean
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>
> > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> > > > >>>> extends
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > Object>
> > > > context) {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > >    
> > > > >>>>     
> > > > >>>>>> boolean
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> result
> > =
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > "widget.verbose"));
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > - 
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>>>    if
> > > > >>>>>> (context != null)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > + 
> > > > >>    
> > > > >>>>    if
> > > > >>>>>> (result == false
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > && context
> > > > !=
> > > > >> null) {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >    String str =
> > > > >>>> (String)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >    if (str !=
> > > > >>>> null) {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >    result =
> > > > >>>>>> "true".equals(str);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -- 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> > twitter:
> > > > http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Myself
> > on twitter:
> > > > http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > Antwebsystems.com:
> > > > >> Quality
> > > > >>>> services for
> > > > >>>>>> competitive rates.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>>> -- 
> > > > >>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > >>>>>>>> Myself on
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > Antwebsystems.com:
> > > > Quality
> > > > >> services
> > > > >>>> for
> > > > >>>>>> competitive rates.
> > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> -- 
> > > > >>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > >>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > >>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> > Quality
> > > > services for
> > > > >>>> competitive rates.
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>>     
> > > >    
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>> -- 
> > > > >>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > >>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > >>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> > services for
> > > > >> competitive rates.
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >       
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>       

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
Hans,

It would be preferable if you would research this information for yourself, but I am willing to oblige:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1318

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:

> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 widgets.properties and web.xml as
> you implemented
> it?
> 
> i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of
> view. The
> disadvantages I already gave you.
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all
> along.
> > 
> > If Hans copied the Example component to create a new
> project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the
> Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in
> the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the
> settings in Hans' local copy.
> > 
> > If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example
> component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple
> the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
> > 
> > Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I
> believe generates new components) has widget comments turned
> off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
> > 
> > -Adrian
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: David E Jones <de...@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 with it, which is usually the
> reason a
> > > discussion starts and discovering such
> differences and
> > > exploring possible resolutions is the point of
> discussions.
> > > 
> > > For my part, getting back to the issue, I also
> noticed that
> > > the widget demarcation comments were no longer on
> by default
> > > and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think
> that the
> > > changes Hans made are the right way to go. In
> fact, I think
> > > how it worked before the round of changes to this
> that were
> > > done before the changes Hans made was the way to
> go, ie:
> > > like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
> > > developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments
> on) with a
> > > configuration option to make it more
> production-friendly
> > > (demarcation comments off).
> > > 
> > > -David
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > > 
> > > > David,
> > > > 
> > > > You are missing the point - there was no
> issue. The
> > > code worked fine.
> > > > 
> > > > I *have* addressed the issue. The correct
> behavior as
> > > designed was detailed in my first reply. If
> anyone needs
> > > further information they can check the commit
> logs and the
> > > related Jira issue.
> > > > 
> > > > Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he
> didn't
> > > understand why it wasn't working the way it
> should. Instead
> > > of asking for help on the mailing list, he
> arbitrarily
> > > changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the
> same thing
> > > there would be a similar reaction from the
> community.
> > > > 
> > > > Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his
> local
> > > copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a
> mistake in
> > > someone's local copy?
> > > > 
> > > > If Hans wants to change the design, then
> that's fine -
> > > lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk
> is broken.
> > > Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and
> asked him
> > > to unbreak it.
> > > > 
> > > > What is so hard to understand about that?
> > > > 
> > > > -Adrian
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >> From: David E Jones <de...@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 it, but it seems like
> these messages
> > > from
> > > >> Hans are presenting the issue and
> attempting to
> > > initiate a
> > > >> discussion on the best way to go
> forward, and your
> > > messages
> > > >> are not discussing the issue and instead
> appealing
> > > to some
> > > >> sort of reason to not change how things
> are at
> > > all.
> > > >> 
> > > >> This doesn't seem to be a two-way
> cooperation, so
> > > who is it
> > > >> that you want Hans to cooperate with? 
> > > >> 
> > > >> -David
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum
> wrote:
> > > >> 
> > > >>> Hans,
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> There was no need for a compromise
> because
> > > there was
> > > >> no problem to begin with.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> You just admitted the problem you
> were
> > > experiencing
> > > >> was due to a misconfiguration in your
> local copy.
> > > Your
> > > >> solution to that misconfiguration was to
> change
> > > the trunk.
> > > >> The trunk was not the problem - the
> problem was in
> > > your
> > > >> local copy.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please
> un-break
> > > it.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> If you revert your changes and
> properly
> > > configure your
> > > >> local copy, then everything will work as
> you
> > > expect it to.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a
> community
> > > of peers
> > > >> and things will go smoother if you learn
> to follow
> > > advice.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> -Adrian
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>> 
> > > >>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in
> the past.
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> therefore i am not in for
> compromises any
> > > more. I
> > > >> would
> > > >>>> like you to
> > > >>>> remove the context code which
> enables the
> > > override
> > > >> in the
> > > >>>> web.xml. It
> > > >>>> makes the system unnecessarily
> complicated
> > > for a
> > > >> feature i
> > > >>>> see no use. 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> It also causes to prohibit
> widgets
> > > comments in the
> > > >> example
> > > >>>> component
> > > >>>> which should show comments by
> default to
> > > follow
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> principle to show
> > > >>>> all possibilities in the system
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> Regards,
> > > >>>> Hans
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00
> -0700, Adrian
> > > Crum
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hans,
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> It's good that you took the
> time to
> > > understand
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> problem.
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> What would be acceptable is
> to revert
> > > the
> > > >> changes you
> > > >>>> made so the original behavior is
> restored.
> > > Your
> > > >> first commit
> > > >>>> tried to fix something that
> wasn't broken,
> > > and
> > > >> your second
> > > >>>> commit disables a demonstration
> of how the
> > > widget
> > > >> comments
> > > >>>> can be controlled.
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> -Adrian
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
> Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35
> > > PM
> > > >>>>>> Ok this is what
> happened:
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from
> about 3-4
> > > weeks ago.
> > > >> Some
> > > >>>> time ago i
> > > >>>>>> created a new
> > > >>>>>> component in hot deploy
> using the
> > > web.xml
> > > >> from
> > > >>>> the example
> > > >>>>>> component. I
> > > >>>>>> see the widget comments
> are not
> > > generated.
> > > >> I
> > > >>>> check
> > > >>>>>> widget.properties and
> > > >>>>>> see the parameter is set
> to true.
> > > I used
> > > >> this
> > > >>>> feature
> > > >>>>>> before and never
> > > >>>>>> had a problem. I see
> that in
> > > >>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> > > >>>>>> class the
> > > >>>>>> 'context stuff' is
> changing true
> > > to
> > > >> false.
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> I not really see the
> benefit of
> > > this code,
> > > >> why
> > > >>>> would
> > > >>>>>> somebody want to
> > > >>>>>> change this setting by
> the
> > > context
> > > >> content?
> > > >>>> However, as
> > > >>>>>> long as the
> > > >>>>>> parameter in widget
> properties
> > > works, then
> > > >> i am
> > > >>>> fine. So i
> > > >>>>>> made the
> > > >>>>>> change that this
> parameter can
> > > only be
> > > >> overridden
> > > >>>> if the
> > > >>>>>> widget comments
> > > >>>>>> are switched of.
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> I now see that the
> comments in
> > > the
> > > >> example
> > > >>>> component are
> > > >>>>>> switched off in
> > > >>>>>> web.xml? I also do not
> understand
> > > this,
> > > >>>> especially the
> > > >>>>>> example component
> > > >>>>>> should show comments?
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> I avoid this confusion
> in the
> > > future I
> > > >> added a
> > > >>>> comment in
> > > >>>>>> widget.properties that
> only
> > > 'false' can
> > > >> be
> > > >>>> overridden and
> > > >>>>>> commented out
> > > >>>>>> the code in web.xml of
> the
> > > example
> > > >> component.
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> I expect this should be
> acceptable
> > > to
> > > >> everybody?
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>> Hans
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at
> 00:28 +1200,
> > > Scott
> > > >> Gray
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Hi Hans,
> > > >>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>> Two points:
> > > >>>>>>> 1.  Calm down,
> this is
> > > just a
> > > >>>> discussion. 
> > > >>>>>> Telling Adrian to look
> at the code
> > > is
> > > >> perfectly
> > > >>>> valid,
> > > >>>>>> getting mad and making
> threats is
> > > not
> > > >>>>>>> 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.
> > > >>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>> Regards
> > > >>>>>>> Scott
> > > >>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at
> 12:17 AM,
> > > Hans
> > > >> Bakker
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>> please check the
> code
> > > before you
> > > >>>> comment?
> > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>> i changed it
> because the
> > > comments
> > > >> were
> > > >>>> not shown
> > > >>>>>> by default anymore as
> > > >>>>>>>> was originally.
> > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>> If you go that
> far , i
> > > will go so
> > > >> far
> > > >>>> and will
> > > >>>>>> use my veto and revert
> > > >>>>>>>> the code that
> added this
> > > context
> > > >> stuff?
> > > >>>> 'true' in
> > > >>>>>> the properties file
> > > >>>>>>>> should always
> show the
> > > widgets
> > > >>>> comments
> > > >>>>>> irrespective of the
> context.
> > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>> no wonder there
> aren't
> > > any
> > > >> significant
> > > >>>> changes in
> > > >>>>>> the last few
> > > >>>>>>>> months ....
> > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>> Hans
> > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu,
> 2010-07-08 at
> > > 04:47
> > > >> -0700,
> > > >>>> Adrian Crum
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Then you
> should change
> > > the
> > > >>>> description, not
> > > >>>>>> the code. The intended
> behavior
> > > is:
> > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>> The
> properties setting
> > > is the
> > > >>>> default, it can
> > > >>>>>> be overridden in the
> web.xml file
> > > >>>> (application-wide
> > > >>>>>> setting), or in the
> context
> > > >> (screen-specific
> > > >>>> setting).
> > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>> --- On Thu,
> 7/8/10,
> > > Hans
> > > >> Bakker
> > > >>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> From:
> Hans Bakker
> > > <ma...@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.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 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
> > > >> 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
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On
> 8/07/2010,
> > > at 9:49
> > > >> PM,
> > > >>>> hansbak@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> Author:
> > > hansbak
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> Date: Thu
> > > >> Jul  8
> > > >>>> 09:49:57
> > > >>>>>> 2010
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> New
> > > Revision:
> > > >> 961684
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> Log:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> make
> > > >>>>>>
> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> > > as the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> descriptions
> > > states:
> > > >> Widget
> > > >>>> boundary
> > > >>>>>> comments are enabled by
> > > >>>>>>>>>> setting
> > > widgetVerbose true
> > > >> in
> > > >>>> the context
> > > >>>>>> Map, OR by setting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > widget.verbose=true in
> > > >>>> widget.properties.
> > > >>>>>> And not let the
> > > >>>>>>>>>> context
> override
> > > the
> > > >>>> widget.properties
> > > >>>>>> setting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> Modified:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> Modified:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>
> > >
> ==============================================================================
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> ---
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> (original)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> +++
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thu
> Jul  8
> > > 09:49:57
> > > >> 2010
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> @@ -21,6
> > > +21,7 @@
> > > >>>> package
> > > >>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> import
> > > >>>> java.io.Serializable;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> import
> > > >> java.util.Map;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> import
> > > >>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> +import
> > > >>>>>>
> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> import
> > > >>>>>>
> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> import
> > > >>>>>>
> > > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> @@ -110,7
> > > +111,7
> > > >> @@
> > > >>>> public class
> > > >>>>>> ModelWidget
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> implements Seri
> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>   
> > > >>>>     */
> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  
> > > >>    public
> > > >>>> static
> > > >>>>>> boolean
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>
> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> > > >>>> extends
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> Object>
> > > context) {
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > >    
> > > >>>>     
> > > >>>>>> boolean
> > > >>>>>>>>>> result
> =
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>
> > >
> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > "widget.verbose"));
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> - 
> > > >>    
> > > >>>>    if
> > > >>>>>> (context != null)
> > > >>>>>>>>>> {
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> + 
> > > >>    
> > > >>>>    if
> > > >>>>>> (result == false
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> && context
> > > !=
> > > >> null) {
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >    String str =
> > > >>>> (String)
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>
> > > context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >    if (str !=
> > > >>>> null) {
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >    result =
> > > >>>>>> "true".equals(str);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -- 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> twitter:
> > > http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Myself
> on twitter:
> > > http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > Antwebsystems.com:
> > > >> Quality
> > > >>>> services for
> > > >>>>>> competitive rates.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>>> -- 
> > > >>>>>>>> Ofbiz on
> twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > >>>>>>>> Myself on
> twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > >>>>>>>>
> Antwebsystems.com:
> > > Quality
> > > >> services
> > > >>>> for
> > > >>>>>> competitive rates.
> > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> -- 
> > > >>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > >>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > >>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> Quality
> > > services for
> > > >>>> competitive rates.
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>>     
> > >    
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> -- 
> > > >>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > >>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > >>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> services for
> > > >> competitive rates.
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >       
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Adrian,

can you please give us the business reason why you want the widget
properties setting via widgets.properties and web.xml as you implemented
it?

i really cannot see the benefits from a business point of view. The
disadvantages I already gave you.

Regards,
Hans



On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 23:04 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all along.
> 
> If Hans copied the Example component to create a new project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the settings in Hans' local copy.
> 
> If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?
> 
> Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I believe generates new components) has widget comments turned off. That should be changed so they are on by default.
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: David E Jones <de...@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 with it, which is usually the reason a
> > discussion starts and discovering such differences and
> > exploring possible resolutions is the point of discussions.
> > 
> > For my part, getting back to the issue, I also noticed that
> > the widget demarcation comments were no longer on by default
> > and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think that the
> > changes Hans made are the right way to go. In fact, I think
> > how it worked before the round of changes to this that were
> > done before the changes Hans made was the way to go, ie:
> > like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
> > developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments on) with a
> > configuration option to make it more production-friendly
> > (demarcation comments off).
> > 
> > -David
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > 
> > > David,
> > > 
> > > You are missing the point - there was no issue. The
> > code worked fine.
> > > 
> > > I *have* addressed the issue. The correct behavior as
> > designed was detailed in my first reply. If anyone needs
> > further information they can check the commit logs and the
> > related Jira issue.
> > > 
> > > Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he didn't
> > understand why it wasn't working the way it should. Instead
> > of asking for help on the mailing list, he arbitrarily
> > changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the same thing
> > there would be a similar reaction from the community.
> > > 
> > > Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his local
> > copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a mistake in
> > someone's local copy?
> > > 
> > > If Hans wants to change the design, then that's fine -
> > lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk is broken.
> > Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and asked him
> > to unbreak it.
> > > 
> > > What is so hard to understand about that?
> > > 
> > > -Adrian
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > >> From: David E Jones <de...@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 it, but it seems like these messages
> > from
> > >> Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to
> > initiate a
> > >> discussion on the best way to go forward, and your
> > messages
> > >> are not discussing the issue and instead appealing
> > to some
> > >> sort of reason to not change how things are at
> > all.
> > >> 
> > >> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so
> > who is it
> > >> that you want Hans to cooperate with? 
> > >> 
> > >> -David
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> Hans,
> > >>> 
> > >>> There was no need for a compromise because
> > there was
> > >> no problem to begin with.
> > >>> 
> > >>> You just admitted the problem you were
> > experiencing
> > >> was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy.
> > Your
> > >> solution to that misconfiguration was to change
> > the trunk.
> > >> The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in
> > your
> > >> local copy.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break
> > it.
> > >>> 
> > >>> If you revert your changes and properly
> > configure your
> > >> local copy, then everything will work as you
> > expect it to.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community
> > of peers
> > >> and things will go smoother if you learn to follow
> > advice.
> > >>> 
> > >>> -Adrian
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in the past.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> therefore i am not in for compromises any
> > more. I
> > >> would
> > >>>> like you to
> > >>>> remove the context code which enables the
> > override
> > >> in the
> > >>>> web.xml. It
> > >>>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated
> > for a
> > >> feature i
> > >>>> see no use. 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> It also causes to prohibit widgets
> > comments in the
> > >> example
> > >>>> component
> > >>>> which should show comments by default to
> > follow
> > >> the
> > >>>> principle to show
> > >>>> all possibilities in the system
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> Hans
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian
> > Crum
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hans,
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> It's good that you took the time to
> > understand
> > >> the
> > >>>> problem.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> What would be acceptable is to revert
> > the
> > >> changes you
> > >>>> made so the original behavior is restored.
> > Your
> > >> first commit
> > >>>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken,
> > and
> > >> your second
> > >>>> commit disables a demonstration of how the
> > widget
> > >> comments
> > >>>> can be controlled.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> -Adrian
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35
> > PM
> > >>>>>> Ok this is what happened:
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4
> > weeks ago.
> > >> Some
> > >>>> time ago i
> > >>>>>> created a new
> > >>>>>> component in hot deploy using the
> > web.xml
> > >> from
> > >>>> the example
> > >>>>>> component. I
> > >>>>>> see the widget comments are not
> > generated.
> > >> I
> > >>>> check
> > >>>>>> widget.properties and
> > >>>>>> see the parameter is set to true.
> > I used
> > >> this
> > >>>> feature
> > >>>>>> before and never
> > >>>>>> had a problem. I see that in
> > >>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> > >>>>>> class the
> > >>>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true
> > to
> > >> false.
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> I not really see the benefit of
> > this code,
> > >> why
> > >>>> would
> > >>>>>> somebody want to
> > >>>>>> change this setting by the
> > context
> > >> content?
> > >>>> However, as
> > >>>>>> long as the
> > >>>>>> parameter in widget properties
> > works, then
> > >> i am
> > >>>> fine. So i
> > >>>>>> made the
> > >>>>>> change that this parameter can
> > only be
> > >> overridden
> > >>>> if the
> > >>>>>> widget comments
> > >>>>>> are switched of.
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> I now see that the comments in
> > the
> > >> example
> > >>>> component are
> > >>>>>> switched off in
> > >>>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand
> > this,
> > >>>> especially the
> > >>>>>> example component
> > >>>>>> should show comments?
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> I avoid this confusion in the
> > future I
> > >> added a
> > >>>> comment in
> > >>>>>> widget.properties that only
> > 'false' can
> > >> be
> > >>>> overridden and
> > >>>>>> commented out
> > >>>>>> the code in web.xml of the
> > example
> > >> component.
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> I expect this should be acceptable
> > to
> > >> everybody?
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>> Hans
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200,
> > Scott
> > >> Gray
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Hi Hans,
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> Two points:
> > >>>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is
> > just a
> > >>>> discussion. 
> > >>>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code
> > is
> > >> perfectly
> > >>>> valid,
> > >>>>>> getting mad and making threats is
> > not
> > >>>>>>> 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.
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>>> Scott
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM,
> > Hans
> > >> Bakker
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> please check the code
> > before you
> > >>>> comment?
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> i changed it because the
> > comments
> > >> were
> > >>>> not shown
> > >>>>>> by default anymore as
> > >>>>>>>> was originally.
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> If you go that far , i
> > will go so
> > >> far
> > >>>> and will
> > >>>>>> use my veto and revert
> > >>>>>>>> the code that added this
> > context
> > >> stuff?
> > >>>> 'true' in
> > >>>>>> the properties file
> > >>>>>>>> should always show the
> > widgets
> > >>>> comments
> > >>>>>> irrespective of the context.
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> no wonder there aren't
> > any
> > >> significant
> > >>>> changes in
> > >>>>>> the last few
> > >>>>>>>> months ....
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>> Hans
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at
> > 04:47
> > >> -0700,
> > >>>> Adrian Crum
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Then you should change
> > the
> > >>>> description, not
> > >>>>>> the code. The intended behavior
> > is:
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> The properties setting
> > is the
> > >>>> default, it can
> > >>>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
> > >>>> (application-wide
> > >>>>>> setting), or in the context
> > >> (screen-specific
> > >>>> setting).
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10,
> > Hans
> > >> Bakker
> > >>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker
> > <ma...@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.
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >> 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010,
> > at 9:49
> > >> PM,
> > >>>> hansbak@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Author:
> > hansbak
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
> > >> Jul  8
> > >>>> 09:49:57
> > >>>>>> 2010
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> New
> > Revision:
> > >> 961684
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> > as the
> > >>>>>>>>>> descriptions
> > states:
> > >> Widget
> > >>>> boundary
> > >>>>>> comments are enabled by
> > >>>>>>>>>> setting
> > widgetVerbose true
> > >> in
> > >>>> the context
> > >>>>>> Map, OR by setting
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > widget.verbose=true in
> > >>>> widget.properties.
> > >>>>>> And not let the
> > >>>>>>>>>> context override
> > the
> > >>>> widget.properties
> > >>>>>> setting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>
> > ==============================================================================
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > >>>>>>>>>> (original)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +++
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8
> > 09:49:57
> > >> 2010
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6
> > +21,7 @@
> > >>>> package
> > >>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> > >>>> java.io.Serializable;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> > >> java.util.Map;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> > >>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +import
> > >>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> > >>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> > >>>>>>
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7
> > +111,7
> > >> @@
> > >>>> public class
> > >>>>>> ModelWidget
> > >>>>>>>>>> implements Seri
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>   
> > >>>>     */
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>  
> > >>    public
> > >>>> static
> > >>>>>> boolean
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> > >>>> extends
> > >>>>>>>>>> Object>
> > context) {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >    
> > >>>>     
> > >>>>>> boolean
> > >>>>>>>>>> result =
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>
> > "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > "widget.verbose"));
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - 
> > >>    
> > >>>>    if
> > >>>>>> (context != null)
> > >>>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> + 
> > >>    
> > >>>>    if
> > >>>>>> (result == false
> > >>>>>>>>>> && context
> > !=
> > >> null) {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> >    String str =
> > >>>> (String)
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>
> > context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> >    if (str !=
> > >>>> null) {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> >    result =
> > >>>>>> "true".equals(str);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> -- 
> > >>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter:
> > http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > >>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter:
> > http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > Antwebsystems.com:
> > >> Quality
> > >>>> services for
> > >>>>>> competitive rates.
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> -- 
> > >>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > >>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > >>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> > Quality
> > >> services
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>>> competitive rates.
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> -- 
> > >>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > >>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > >>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> > services for
> > >>>> competitive rates.
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>>     
> >    
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> -- 
> > >>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > >>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > >>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> > >> competitive rates.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>       

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
Exactly! That's what I have been trying to say all along.

If Hans copied the Example component to create a new project, and the HTML comments were turned off in the Example component, then that doesn't mean there was a bug in the screen widgets. Instead, there was a problem in the settings in Hans' local copy.

If we want to turn on HTML comments in the Example component, then fine - let's discuss that. But why cripple the entire widget HTML comments feature in the process?

Btw, I noticed the resources component (which I believe generates new components) has widget comments turned off. That should be changed so they are on by default.

-Adrian


--- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com> wrote:

> From: David E Jones <de...@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 with it, which is usually the reason a
> discussion starts and discovering such differences and
> exploring possible resolutions is the point of discussions.
> 
> For my part, getting back to the issue, I also noticed that
> the widget demarcation comments were no longer on by default
> and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think that the
> changes Hans made are the right way to go. In fact, I think
> how it worked before the round of changes to this that were
> done before the changes Hans made was the way to go, ie:
> like most things in OFBiz a default of a more
> developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments on) with a
> configuration option to make it more production-friendly
> (demarcation comments off).
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
> > David,
> > 
> > You are missing the point - there was no issue. The
> code worked fine.
> > 
> > I *have* addressed the issue. The correct behavior as
> designed was detailed in my first reply. If anyone needs
> further information they can check the commit logs and the
> related Jira issue.
> > 
> > Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he didn't
> understand why it wasn't working the way it should. Instead
> of asking for help on the mailing list, he arbitrarily
> changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the same thing
> there would be a similar reaction from the community.
> > 
> > Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his local
> copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a mistake in
> someone's local copy?
> > 
> > If Hans wants to change the design, then that's fine -
> lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk is broken.
> Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and asked him
> to unbreak it.
> > 
> > What is so hard to understand about that?
> > 
> > -Adrian
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: David E Jones <de...@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 it, but it seems like these messages
> from
> >> Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to
> initiate a
> >> discussion on the best way to go forward, and your
> messages
> >> are not discussing the issue and instead appealing
> to some
> >> sort of reason to not change how things are at
> all.
> >> 
> >> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so
> who is it
> >> that you want Hans to cooperate with? 
> >> 
> >> -David
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hans,
> >>> 
> >>> There was no need for a compromise because
> there was
> >> no problem to begin with.
> >>> 
> >>> You just admitted the problem you were
> experiencing
> >> was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy.
> Your
> >> solution to that misconfiguration was to change
> the trunk.
> >> The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in
> your
> >> local copy.
> >>> 
> >>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break
> it.
> >>> 
> >>> If you revert your changes and properly
> configure your
> >> local copy, then everything will work as you
> expect it to.
> >>> 
> >>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community
> of peers
> >> and things will go smoother if you learn to follow
> advice.
> >>> 
> >>> -Adrian
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in the past.
> >>>> 
> >>>> therefore i am not in for compromises any
> more. I
> >> would
> >>>> like you to
> >>>> remove the context code which enables the
> override
> >> in the
> >>>> web.xml. It
> >>>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated
> for a
> >> feature i
> >>>> see no use. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> It also causes to prohibit widgets
> comments in the
> >> example
> >>>> component
> >>>> which should show comments by default to
> follow
> >> the
> >>>> principle to show
> >>>> all possibilities in the system
> >>>> 
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Hans
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian
> Crum
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> Hans,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's good that you took the time to
> understand
> >> the
> >>>> problem.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> What would be acceptable is to revert
> the
> >> changes you
> >>>> made so the original behavior is restored.
> Your
> >> first commit
> >>>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken,
> and
> >> your second
> >>>> commit disables a demonstration of how the
> widget
> >> comments
> >>>> can be controlled.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35
> PM
> >>>>>> Ok this is what happened:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4
> weeks ago.
> >> Some
> >>>> time ago i
> >>>>>> created a new
> >>>>>> component in hot deploy using the
> web.xml
> >> from
> >>>> the example
> >>>>>> component. I
> >>>>>> see the widget comments are not
> generated.
> >> I
> >>>> check
> >>>>>> widget.properties and
> >>>>>> see the parameter is set to true.
> I used
> >> this
> >>>> feature
> >>>>>> before and never
> >>>>>> had a problem. I see that in
> >>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> >>>>>> class the
> >>>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true
> to
> >> false.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I not really see the benefit of
> this code,
> >> why
> >>>> would
> >>>>>> somebody want to
> >>>>>> change this setting by the
> context
> >> content?
> >>>> However, as
> >>>>>> long as the
> >>>>>> parameter in widget properties
> works, then
> >> i am
> >>>> fine. So i
> >>>>>> made the
> >>>>>> change that this parameter can
> only be
> >> overridden
> >>>> if the
> >>>>>> widget comments
> >>>>>> are switched of.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I now see that the comments in
> the
> >> example
> >>>> component are
> >>>>>> switched off in
> >>>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand
> this,
> >>>> especially the
> >>>>>> example component
> >>>>>> should show comments?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I avoid this confusion in the
> future I
> >> added a
> >>>> comment in
> >>>>>> widget.properties that only
> 'false' can
> >> be
> >>>> overridden and
> >>>>>> commented out
> >>>>>> the code in web.xml of the
> example
> >> component.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I expect this should be acceptable
> to
> >> everybody?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200,
> Scott
> >> Gray
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Hans,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Two points:
> >>>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is
> just a
> >>>> discussion. 
> >>>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code
> is
> >> perfectly
> >>>> valid,
> >>>>>> getting mad and making threats is
> not
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>> Scott
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM,
> Hans
> >> Bakker
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> please check the code
> before you
> >>>> comment?
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> i changed it because the
> comments
> >> were
> >>>> not shown
> >>>>>> by default anymore as
> >>>>>>>> was originally.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> If you go that far , i
> will go so
> >> far
> >>>> and will
> >>>>>> use my veto and revert
> >>>>>>>> the code that added this
> context
> >> stuff?
> >>>> 'true' in
> >>>>>> the properties file
> >>>>>>>> should always show the
> widgets
> >>>> comments
> >>>>>> irrespective of the context.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> no wonder there aren't
> any
> >> significant
> >>>> changes in
> >>>>>> the last few
> >>>>>>>> months ....
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at
> 04:47
> >> -0700,
> >>>> Adrian Crum
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Then you should change
> the
> >>>> description, not
> >>>>>> the code. The intended behavior
> is:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> The properties setting
> is the
> >>>> default, it can
> >>>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
> >>>> (application-wide
> >>>>>> setting), or in the context
> >> (screen-specific
> >>>> setting).
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10,
> Hans
> >> Bakker
> >>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker
> <ma...@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.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010,
> at 9:49
> >> PM,
> >>>> hansbak@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Author:
> hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
> >> Jul  8
> >>>> 09:49:57
> >>>>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>> New
> Revision:
> >> 961684
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> as the
> >>>>>>>>>> descriptions
> states:
> >> Widget
> >>>> boundary
> >>>>>> comments are enabled by
> >>>>>>>>>> setting
> widgetVerbose true
> >> in
> >>>> the context
> >>>>>> Map, OR by setting
> >>>>>>>>>>
> widget.verbose=true in
> >>>> widget.properties.
> >>>>>> And not let the
> >>>>>>>>>> context override
> the
> >>>> widget.properties
> >>>>>> setting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ==============================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>> (original)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +++
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8
> 09:49:57
> >> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6
> +21,7 @@
> >>>> package
> >>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>> java.io.Serializable;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >> java.util.Map;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +import
> >>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>>>>
> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7
> +111,7
> >> @@
> >>>> public class
> >>>>>> ModelWidget
> >>>>>>>>>> implements Seri
> >>>>>>>>>>>>   
> >>>>     */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  
> >>    public
> >>>> static
> >>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> >>>> extends
> >>>>>>>>>> Object>
> context) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
>    
> >>>>     
> >>>>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>>>> result =
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> >>>>>>>>>>
> "widget.verbose"));
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - 
> >>    
> >>>>    if
> >>>>>> (context != null)
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> + 
> >>    
> >>>>    if
> >>>>>> (result == false
> >>>>>>>>>> && context
> !=
> >> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
>    String str =
> >>>> (String)
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>
> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
>    if (str !=
> >>>> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
>    result =
> >>>>>> "true".equals(str);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter:
> http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter:
> http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>>
> Antwebsystems.com:
> >> Quality
> >>>> services for
> >>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> Quality
> >> services
> >>>> for
> >>>>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> services for
> >>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>     
>    
> >>>> 
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> >> competitive rates.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Just because you are fine with how it works doesn't mean others are fine with it, which is usually the reason a discussion starts and discovering such differences and exploring possible resolutions is the point of discussions.

For my part, getting back to the issue, I also noticed that the widget demarcation comments were no longer on by default and I found it somewhat annoying. I don't think that the changes Hans made are the right way to go. In fact, I think how it worked before the round of changes to this that were done before the changes Hans made was the way to go, ie: like most things in OFBiz a default of a more developer-friendly mode (the demarcation comments on) with a configuration option to make it more production-friendly (demarcation comments off).

-David


On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> David,
> 
> You are missing the point - there was no issue. The code worked fine.
> 
> I *have* addressed the issue. The correct behavior as designed was detailed in my first reply. If anyone needs further information they can check the commit logs and the related Jira issue.
> 
> Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he didn't understand why it wasn't working the way it should. Instead of asking for help on the mailing list, he arbitrarily changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the same thing there would be a similar reaction from the community.
> 
> Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his local copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a mistake in someone's local copy?
> 
> If Hans wants to change the design, then that's fine - lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk is broken. Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and asked him to unbreak it.
> 
> What is so hard to understand about that?
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: David E Jones <de...@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 it, but it seems like these messages from
>> Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to initiate a
>> discussion on the best way to go forward, and your messages
>> are not discussing the issue and instead appealing to some
>> sort of reason to not change how things are at all.
>> 
>> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so who is it
>> that you want Hans to cooperate with? 
>> 
>> -David
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> 
>>> Hans,
>>> 
>>> There was no need for a compromise because there was
>> no problem to begin with.
>>> 
>>> You just admitted the problem you were experiencing
>> was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy. Your
>> solution to that misconfiguration was to change the trunk.
>> The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in your
>> local copy.
>>> 
>>> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break it.
>>> 
>>> If you revert your changes and properly configure your
>> local copy, then everything will work as you expect it to.
>>> 
>>> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community of peers
>> and things will go smoother if you learn to follow advice.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in the past.
>>>> 
>>>> therefore i am not in for compromises any more. I
>> would
>>>> like you to
>>>> remove the context code which enables the override
>> in the
>>>> web.xml. It
>>>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated for a
>> feature i
>>>> see no use. 
>>>> 
>>>> It also causes to prohibit widgets comments in the
>> example
>>>> component
>>>> which should show comments by default to follow
>> the
>>>> principle to show
>>>> all possibilities in the system
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hans
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian Crum
>> wrote:
>>>>> Hans,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's good that you took the time to understand
>> the
>>>> problem.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What would be acceptable is to revert the
>> changes you
>>>> made so the original behavior is restored. Your
>> first commit
>>>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and
>> your second
>>>> commit disables a demonstration of how the widget
>> comments
>>>> can be controlled.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>> 
>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35 PM
>>>>>> Ok this is what happened:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4 weeks ago.
>> Some
>>>> time ago i
>>>>>> created a new
>>>>>> component in hot deploy using the web.xml
>> from
>>>> the example
>>>>>> component. I
>>>>>> see the widget comments are not generated.
>> I
>>>> check
>>>>>> widget.properties and
>>>>>> see the parameter is set to true. I used
>> this
>>>> feature
>>>>>> before and never
>>>>>> had a problem. I see that in
>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
>>>>>> class the
>>>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true to
>> false.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I not really see the benefit of this code,
>> why
>>>> would
>>>>>> somebody want to
>>>>>> change this setting by the context
>> content?
>>>> However, as
>>>>>> long as the
>>>>>> parameter in widget properties works, then
>> i am
>>>> fine. So i
>>>>>> made the
>>>>>> change that this parameter can only be
>> overridden
>>>> if the
>>>>>> widget comments
>>>>>> are switched of.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I now see that the comments in the
>> example
>>>> component are
>>>>>> switched off in
>>>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand this,
>>>> especially the
>>>>>> example component
>>>>>> should show comments?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I avoid this confusion in the future I
>> added a
>>>> comment in
>>>>>> widget.properties that only 'false' can
>> be
>>>> overridden and
>>>>>> commented out
>>>>>> the code in web.xml of the example
>> component.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I expect this should be acceptable to
>> everybody?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200, Scott
>> Gray
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Two points:
>>>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is just a
>>>> discussion. 
>>>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code is
>> perfectly
>>>> valid,
>>>>>> getting mad and making threats is not
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans
>> Bakker
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> please check the code before you
>>>> comment?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> i changed it because the comments
>> were
>>>> not shown
>>>>>> by default anymore as
>>>>>>>> was originally.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If you go that far , i will go so
>> far
>>>> and will
>>>>>> use my veto and revert
>>>>>>>> the code that added this context
>> stuff?
>>>> 'true' in
>>>>>> the properties file
>>>>>>>> should always show the widgets
>>>> comments
>>>>>> irrespective of the context.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> no wonder there aren't any
>> significant
>>>> changes in
>>>>>> the last few
>>>>>>>> months ....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47
>> -0700,
>>>> Adrian Crum
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Then you should change the
>>>> description, not
>>>>>> the code. The intended behavior is:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The properties setting is the
>>>> default, it can
>>>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
>>>> (application-wide
>>>>>> setting), or in the context
>> (screen-specific
>>>> setting).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
>> Bakker
>>>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49
>> PM,
>>>> hansbak@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
>> Jul  8
>>>> 09:49:57
>>>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision:
>> 961684
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
>>>>>>>>>> descriptions states:
>> Widget
>>>> boundary
>>>>>> comments are enabled by
>>>>>>>>>> setting widgetVerbose true
>> in
>>>> the context
>>>>>> Map, OR by setting
>>>>>>>>>> widget.verbose=true in
>>>> widget.properties.
>>>>>> And not let the
>>>>>>>>>> context override the
>>>> widget.properties
>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57
>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>>> package
>>>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>> java.io.Serializable;
>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>> java.util.Map;
>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +import
>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7
>> @@
>>>> public class
>>>>>> ModelWidget
>>>>>>>>>> implements Seri
>>>>>>>>>>>>   
>>>>     */
>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>    public
>>>> static
>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
>>>> extends
>>>>>>>>>> Object> context) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>     
>>>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>>>> result =
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
>>>>>>>>>> "widget.verbose"));
>>>>>>>>>>>> - 
>>    
>>>>    if
>>>>>> (context != null)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>> + 
>>    
>>>>    if
>>>>>> (result == false
>>>>>>>>>> && context !=
>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>     String str =
>>>> (String)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>     if (str !=
>>>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>     result =
>>>>>> "true".equals(str);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
>> Quality
>>>> services for
>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
>> services
>>>> for
>>>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>         
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
>> competitive rates.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
David,

You are missing the point - there was no issue. The code worked fine.

I *have* addressed the issue. The correct behavior as designed was detailed in my first reply. If anyone needs further information they can check the commit logs and the related Jira issue.

Hans had a misconfigured local copy, and he didn't understand why it wasn't working the way it should. Instead of asking for help on the mailing list, he arbitrarily changed the trunk. If anyone else had done the same thing there would be a similar reaction from the community.

Hans just admitted he made a mistake in his local copy. Why should the trunk change to fix a mistake in someone's local copy?

If Hans wants to change the design, then that's fine - lets discuss that. But in the meantime the trunk is broken. Hans broke it. I've tried to reason with him and asked him to unbreak it.

What is so hard to understand about that?

-Adrian


--- On Thu, 7/8/10, David E Jones <de...@me.com> wrote:

> From: David E Jones <de...@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 it, but it seems like these messages from
> Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to initiate a
> discussion on the best way to go forward, and your messages
> are not discussing the issue and instead appealing to some
> sort of reason to not change how things are at all.
> 
> This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so who is it
> that you want Hans to cooperate with? 
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
> > Hans,
> > 
> > There was no need for a compromise because there was
> no problem to begin with.
> > 
> > You just admitted the problem you were experiencing
> was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy. Your
> solution to that misconfiguration was to change the trunk.
> The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in your
> local copy.
> > 
> > Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break it.
> > 
> > If you revert your changes and properly configure your
> local copy, then everything will work as you expect it to.
> > 
> > Please learn to cooperate. We are a community of peers
> and things will go smoother if you learn to follow advice.
> > 
> > -Adrian
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in the past.
> >> 
> >> therefore i am not in for compromises any more. I
> would
> >> like you to
> >> remove the context code which enables the override
> in the
> >> web.xml. It
> >> makes the system unnecessarily complicated for a
> feature i
> >> see no use. 
> >> 
> >> It also causes to prohibit widgets comments in the
> example
> >> component
> >> which should show comments by default to follow
> the
> >> principle to show
> >> all possibilities in the system
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Hans
> >> 
> >> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian Crum
> wrote:
> >>> Hans,
> >>> 
> >>> It's good that you took the time to understand
> the
> >> problem.
> >>> 
> >>> What would be acceptable is to revert the
> changes you
> >> made so the original behavior is restored. Your
> first commit
> >> tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and
> your second
> >> commit disables a demonstration of how the widget
> comments
> >> can be controlled.
> >>> 
> >>> -Adrian
> >>> 
> >>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35 PM
> >>>> Ok this is what happened:
> >>>> 
> >>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4 weeks ago.
> Some
> >> time ago i
> >>>> created a new
> >>>> component in hot deploy using the web.xml
> from
> >> the example
> >>>> component. I
> >>>> see the widget comments are not generated.
> I
> >> check
> >>>> widget.properties and
> >>>> see the parameter is set to true. I used
> this
> >> feature
> >>>> before and never
> >>>> had a problem. I see that in
> >> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> >>>> class the
> >>>> 'context stuff' is changing true to
> false.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I not really see the benefit of this code,
> why
> >> would
> >>>> somebody want to
> >>>> change this setting by the context
> content?
> >> However, as
> >>>> long as the
> >>>> parameter in widget properties works, then
> i am
> >> fine. So i
> >>>> made the
> >>>> change that this parameter can only be
> overridden
> >> if the
> >>>> widget comments
> >>>> are switched of.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I now see that the comments in the
> example
> >> component are
> >>>> switched off in
> >>>> web.xml? I also do not understand this,
> >> especially the
> >>>> example component
> >>>> should show comments?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I avoid this confusion in the future I
> added a
> >> comment in
> >>>> widget.properties that only 'false' can
> be
> >> overridden and
> >>>> commented out
> >>>> the code in web.xml of the example
> component.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I expect this should be acceptable to
> everybody?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Hans
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200, Scott
> Gray
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Hans,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Two points:
> >>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is just a
> >> discussion. 
> >>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code is
> perfectly
> >> valid,
> >>>> getting mad and making threats is not
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> Scott
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans
> Bakker
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> please check the code before you
> >> comment?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> i changed it because the comments
> were
> >> not shown
> >>>> by default anymore as
> >>>>>> was originally.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> If you go that far , i will go so
> far
> >> and will
> >>>> use my veto and revert
> >>>>>> the code that added this context
> stuff?
> >> 'true' in
> >>>> the properties file
> >>>>>> should always show the widgets
> >> comments
> >>>> irrespective of the context.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> no wonder there aren't any
> significant
> >> changes in
> >>>> the last few
> >>>>>> months ....
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Hans
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47
> -0700,
> >> Adrian Crum
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Then you should change the
> >> description, not
> >>>> the code. The intended behavior is:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The properties setting is the
> >> default, it can
> >>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
> >> (application-wide
> >>>> setting), or in the context
> (screen-specific
> >> setting).
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans
> Bakker
> >> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 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
> 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
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49
> PM,
> >> hansbak@apache.org
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu
> Jul  8
> >> 09:49:57
> >>>> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>> New Revision:
> 961684
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> >>>>>>>>>> Log:
> >>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
> >>>>>>>> descriptions states:
> Widget
> >> boundary
> >>>> comments are enabled by
> >>>>>>>> setting widgetVerbose true
> in
> >> the context
> >>>> Map, OR by setting
> >>>>>>>> widget.verbose=true in
> >> widget.properties.
> >>>> And not let the
> >>>>>>>> context override the
> >> widget.properties
> >>>> setting
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Modified:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ==============================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>> (original)
> >>>>>>>>>> +++
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57
> 2010
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> >> package
> >>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
> >>>>>>>>>> import
> >> java.io.Serializable;
> >>>>>>>>>> import
> java.util.Map;
> >>>>>>>>>> import
> >> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> >>>>>>>>>> +import
> >>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> >>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> >>>>>>>>>> import
> >>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7
> @@
> >> public class
> >>>> ModelWidget
> >>>>>>>> implements Seri
> >>>>>>>>>>  
> >>    */
> >>>>>>>>>> 
>    public
> >> static
> >>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>
> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> >> extends
> >>>>>>>> Object> context) {
> >>>>>>>>>>    
> >>    
> >>>> boolean
> >>>>>>>> result =
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>
> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> >>>>>>>> "widget.verbose"));
> >>>>>>>>>> - 
>    
> >>   if
> >>>> (context != null)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> + 
>    
> >>   if
> >>>> (result == false
> >>>>>>>> && context !=
> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>    String str =
> >> (String)
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>    if (str !=
> >> null) {
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>    result =
> >>>> "true".equals(str);
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com:
> Quality
> >> services for
> >>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> services
> >> for
> >>>> competitive rates.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> >> competitive rates.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>        
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> competitive rates.
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Adrian,

I hate to say it, but it seems like these messages from Hans are presenting the issue and attempting to initiate a discussion on the best way to go forward, and your messages are not discussing the issue and instead appealing to some sort of reason to not change how things are at all.

This doesn't seem to be a two-way cooperation, so who is it that you want Hans to cooperate with? 

-David


On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Hans,
> 
> There was no need for a compromise because there was no problem to begin with.
> 
> You just admitted the problem you were experiencing was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy. Your solution to that misconfiguration was to change the trunk. The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in your local copy.
> 
> Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break it.
> 
> If you revert your changes and properly configure your local copy, then everything will work as you expect it to.
> 
> Please learn to cooperate. We are a community of peers and things will go smoother if you learn to follow advice.
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in the past.
>> 
>> therefore i am not in for compromises any more. I would
>> like you to
>> remove the context code which enables the override in the
>> web.xml. It
>> makes the system unnecessarily complicated for a feature i
>> see no use. 
>> 
>> It also causes to prohibit widgets comments in the example
>> component
>> which should show comments by default to follow the
>> principle to show
>> all possibilities in the system
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>> 
>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Hans,
>>> 
>>> It's good that you took the time to understand the
>> problem.
>>> 
>>> What would be acceptable is to revert the changes you
>> made so the original behavior is restored. Your first commit
>> tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and your second
>> commit disables a demonstration of how the widget comments
>> can be controlled.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35 PM
>>>> Ok this is what happened:
>>>> 
>>>> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4 weeks ago. Some
>> time ago i
>>>> created a new
>>>> component in hot deploy using the web.xml from
>> the example
>>>> component. I
>>>> see the widget comments are not generated. I
>> check
>>>> widget.properties and
>>>> see the parameter is set to true. I used this
>> feature
>>>> before and never
>>>> had a problem. I see that in
>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
>>>> class the
>>>> 'context stuff' is changing true to false.
>>>> 
>>>> I not really see the benefit of this code, why
>> would
>>>> somebody want to
>>>> change this setting by the context content?
>> However, as
>>>> long as the
>>>> parameter in widget properties works, then i am
>> fine. So i
>>>> made the
>>>> change that this parameter can only be overridden
>> if the
>>>> widget comments
>>>> are switched of.
>>>> 
>>>> I now see that the comments in the example
>> component are
>>>> switched off in
>>>> web.xml? I also do not understand this,
>> especially the
>>>> example component
>>>> should show comments?
>>>> 
>>>> I avoid this confusion in the future I added a
>> comment in
>>>> widget.properties that only 'false' can be
>> overridden and
>>>> commented out
>>>> the code in web.xml of the example component.
>>>> 
>>>> I expect this should be acceptable to everybody?
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hans
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200, Scott Gray
>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Hans,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Two points:
>>>>> 1.  Calm down, this is just a
>> discussion. 
>>>> Telling Adrian to look at the code is perfectly
>> valid,
>>>> getting mad and making threats is not
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans Bakker
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> please check the code before you
>> comment?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> i changed it because the comments were
>> not shown
>>>> by default anymore as
>>>>>> was originally.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you go that far , i will go so far
>> and will
>>>> use my veto and revert
>>>>>> the code that added this context stuff?
>> 'true' in
>>>> the properties file
>>>>>> should always show the widgets
>> comments
>>>> irrespective of the context.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> no wonder there aren't any significant
>> changes in
>>>> the last few
>>>>>> months ....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47 -0700,
>> Adrian Crum
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Then you should change the
>> description, not
>>>> the code. The intended behavior is:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The properties setting is the
>> default, it can
>>>> be overridden in the web.xml file
>> (application-wide
>>>> setting), or in the context (screen-specific
>> setting).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
>> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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 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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM,
>> hansbak@apache.org
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Jul  8
>> 09:49:57
>>>> 2010
>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 961684
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
>>>>>>>> descriptions states: Widget
>> boundary
>>>> comments are enabled by
>>>>>>>> setting widgetVerbose true in
>> the context
>>>> Map, OR by setting
>>>>>>>> widget.verbose=true in
>> widget.properties.
>>>> And not let the
>>>>>>>> context override the
>> widget.properties
>>>> setting
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>>>>> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>> package
>>>> org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>>>>>>>> import
>> java.io.Serializable;
>>>>>>>>>> import java.util.Map;
>>>>>>>>>> import
>> org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>>>>>>>> +import
>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>>>>>>>> import
>>>> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@
>> public class
>>>> ModelWidget
>>>>>>>> implements Seri
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>    */
>>>>>>>>>>     public
>> static
>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
>> extends
>>>>>>>> Object> context) {
>>>>>>>>>>    
>>    
>>>> boolean
>>>>>>>> result =
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
>>>>>>>> "widget.verbose"));
>>>>>>>>>> -     
>>   if
>>>> (context != null)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> +     
>>   if
>>>> (result == false
>>>>>>>> && context != null) {
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    String str =
>> (String)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    if (str !=
>> null) {
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    result =
>>>> "true".equals(str);
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
>> services for
>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services
>> for
>>>> competitive rates.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
>> competitive rates.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
Hans,

There was no need for a compromise because there was no problem to begin with.

You just admitted the problem you were experiencing was due to a misconfiguration in your local copy. Your solution to that misconfiguration was to change the trunk. The trunk was not the problem - the problem was in your local copy.

Your changes broke the trunk. Please un-break it.

If you revert your changes and properly configure your local copy, then everything will work as you expect it to.

Please learn to cooperate. We are a community of peers and things will go smoother if you learn to follow advice.

-Adrian


--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:

> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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 times in the past.
> 
> therefore i am not in for compromises any more. I would
> like you to
> remove the context code which enables the override in the
> web.xml. It
> makes the system unnecessarily complicated for a feature i
> see no use. 
> 
> It also causes to prohibit widgets comments in the example
> component
> which should show comments by default to follow the
> principle to show
> all possibilities in the system
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > Hans,
> > 
> > It's good that you took the time to understand the
> problem.
> > 
> > What would be acceptable is to revert the changes you
> made so the original behavior is restored. Your first commit
> tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and your second
> commit disables a demonstration of how the widget comments
> can be controlled.
> > 
> > -Adrian
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35 PM
> > > Ok this is what happened:
> > > 
> > > I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4 weeks ago. Some
> time ago i
> > > created a new
> > > component in hot deploy using the web.xml from
> the example
> > > component. I
> > > see the widget comments are not generated. I
> check
> > > widget.properties and
> > > see the parameter is set to true. I used this
> feature
> > > before and never
> > > had a problem. I see that in
> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> > > class the
> > > 'context stuff' is changing true to false.
> > > 
> > > I not really see the benefit of this code, why
> would
> > > somebody want to
> > > change this setting by the context content?
> However, as
> > > long as the
> > > parameter in widget properties works, then i am
> fine. So i
> > > made the
> > > change that this parameter can only be overridden
> if the
> > > widget comments
> > > are switched of.
> > > 
> > > I now see that the comments in the example
> component are
> > > switched off in
> > > web.xml? I also do not understand this,
> especially the
> > > example component
> > > should show comments?
> > > 
> > > I avoid this confusion in the future I added a
> comment in
> > > widget.properties that only 'false' can be
> overridden and
> > > commented out
> > > the code in web.xml of the example component.
> > > 
> > > I expect this should be acceptable to everybody?
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Hans
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200, Scott Gray
> wrote:
> > > > Hi Hans,
> > > > 
> > > > Two points:
> > > > 1.  Calm down, this is just a
> discussion. 
> > > Telling Adrian to look at the code is perfectly
> valid,
> > > getting mad and making threats is not
> > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards
> > > > Scott
> > > > 
> > > > On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans Bakker
> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > please check the code before you
> comment?
> > > > > 
> > > > > i changed it because the comments were
> not shown
> > > by default anymore as
> > > > > was originally.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you go that far , i will go so far
> and will
> > > use my veto and revert
> > > > > the code that added this context stuff?
> 'true' in
> > > the properties file
> > > > > should always show the widgets
> comments
> > > irrespective of the context.
> > > > > 
> > > > > no wonder there aren't any significant
> changes in
> > > the last few
> > > > > months ....
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Hans
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47 -0700,
> Adrian Crum
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> Then you should change the
> description, not
> > > the code. The intended behavior is:
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> The properties setting is the
> default, it can
> > > be overridden in the web.xml file
> (application-wide
> > > setting), or in the context (screen-specific
> setting).
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> -Adrian
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker
> <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> 
> > > > >>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> 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 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
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM,
> hansbak@apache.org
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>>>> Author: hansbak
> > > > >>>>> Date: Thu Jul  8
> 09:49:57
> > > 2010
> > > > >>>>> New Revision: 961684
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > > > >>>>> Log:
> > > > >>>>> make
> > > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
> > > > >>> descriptions states: Widget
> boundary
> > > comments are enabled by
> > > > >>> setting widgetVerbose true in
> the context
> > > Map, OR by setting
> > > > >>> widget.verbose=true in
> widget.properties.
> > > And not let the
> > > > >>> context override the
> widget.properties
> > > setting
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> Modified:
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> Modified:
> > > > >>>
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>
> > >
> ==============================================================================
> > > > >>>>> ---
> > > > >>>
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>> (original)
> > > > >>>>> +++
> > > > >>>
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > >>> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > > >>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> package
> > > org.ofbiz.widget;
> > > > >>>>> import
> java.io.Serializable;
> > > > >>>>> import java.util.Map;
> > > > >>>>> import
> org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > > > >>>>> +import
> > > org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > > > >>>>> import
> > > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > > > >>>>> import
> > > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@
> public class
> > > ModelWidget
> > > > >>> implements Seri
> > > > >>>>> 
>    */
> > > > >>>>>    public
> static
> > > boolean
> > > > >>>
> > > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> extends
> > > > >>> Object> context) {
> > > > >>>>>   
>    
> > > boolean
> > > > >>> result =
> > > > >>>
> > >
> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> > > > >>> "widget.verbose"));
> > > > >>>>> -     
>   if
> > > (context != null)
> > > > >>> {
> > > > >>>>> +     
>   if
> > > (result == false
> > > > >>> && context != null) {
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>   String str =
> (String)
> > > > >>>
> > > context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>   if (str !=
> null) {
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>   result =
> > > "true".equals(str);
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>>> 
> > > > >>>> 
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> -- 
> > > > >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
> services for
> > > competitive rates.
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services
> for
> > > competitive rates.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> competitive rates.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >       
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Adrian,

what i proposed to you was a compromise. You seem to only accept your
way, as happened many times in the past.

therefore i am not in for compromises any more. I would like you to
remove the context code which enables the override in the web.xml. It
makes the system unnecessarily complicated for a feature i see no use. 

It also causes to prohibit widgets comments in the example component
which should show comments by default to follow the principle to show
all possibilities in the system

Regards,
Hans

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:00 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Hans,
> 
> It's good that you took the time to understand the problem.
> 
> What would be acceptable is to revert the changes you made so the original behavior is restored. Your first commit tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and your second commit disables a demonstration of how the widget comments can be controlled.
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35 PM
> > Ok this is what happened:
> > 
> > I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4 weeks ago. Some time ago i
> > created a new
> > component in hot deploy using the web.xml from the example
> > component. I
> > see the widget comments are not generated. I check
> > widget.properties and
> > see the parameter is set to true. I used this feature
> > before and never
> > had a problem. I see that in widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> > class the
> > 'context stuff' is changing true to false.
> > 
> > I not really see the benefit of this code, why would
> > somebody want to
> > change this setting by the context content? However, as
> > long as the
> > parameter in widget properties works, then i am fine. So i
> > made the
> > change that this parameter can only be overridden if the
> > widget comments
> > are switched of.
> > 
> > I now see that the comments in the example component are
> > switched off in
> > web.xml? I also do not understand this, especially the
> > example component
> > should show comments?
> > 
> > I avoid this confusion in the future I added a comment in
> > widget.properties that only 'false' can be overridden and
> > commented out
> > the code in web.xml of the example component.
> > 
> > I expect this should be acceptable to everybody?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> > > Hi Hans,
> > > 
> > > Two points:
> > > 1.  Calm down, this is just a discussion. 
> > Telling Adrian to look at the code is perfectly valid,
> > getting mad and making threats is not
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Scott
> > > 
> > > On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> > > 
> > > > please check the code before you comment?
> > > > 
> > > > i changed it because the comments were not shown
> > by default anymore as
> > > > was originally.
> > > > 
> > > > If you go that far , i will go so far and will
> > use my veto and revert
> > > > the code that added this context stuff? 'true' in
> > the properties file
> > > > should always show the widgets comments
> > irrespective of the context.
> > > > 
> > > > no wonder there aren't any significant changes in
> > the last few
> > > > months ....
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Hans
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47 -0700, Adrian Crum
> > wrote:
> > > >> Then you should change the description, not
> > the code. The intended behavior is:
> > > >> 
> > > >> The properties setting is the default, it can
> > be overridden in the web.xml file (application-wide
> > setting), or in the context (screen-specific setting).
> > > >> 
> > > >> -Adrian
> > > >> 
> > > >> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> 
> > > >>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> 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 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
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>>> Author: hansbak
> > > >>>>> Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57
> > 2010
> > > >>>>> New Revision: 961684
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > > >>>>> Log:
> > > >>>>> make
> > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
> > > >>> descriptions states: Widget boundary
> > comments are enabled by
> > > >>> setting widgetVerbose true in the context
> > Map, OR by setting
> > > >>> widget.verbose=true in widget.properties.
> > And not let the
> > > >>> context override the widget.properties
> > setting
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> Modified:
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> Modified:
> > > >>>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>
> > ==============================================================================
> > > >>>>> ---
> > > >>>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > >>> (original)
> > > >>>>> +++
> > > >>>
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > >>> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > >>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package
> > org.ofbiz.widget;
> > > >>>>> import java.io.Serializable;
> > > >>>>> import java.util.Map;
> > > >>>>> import org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > > >>>>> +import
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > > >>>>> import
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > > >>>>> import
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class
> > ModelWidget
> > > >>> implements Seri
> > > >>>>>     */
> > > >>>>>    public static
> > boolean
> > > >>>
> > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends
> > > >>> Object> context) {
> > > >>>>>       
> > boolean
> > > >>> result =
> > > >>>
> > "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> > > >>> "widget.verbose"));
> > > >>>>> -        if
> > (context != null)
> > > >>> {
> > > >>>>> +        if
> > (result == false
> > > >>> && context != null) {
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>   String str = (String)
> > > >>>
> > context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>   if (str != null) {
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>   result =
> > "true".equals(str);
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> -- 
> > > >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> > competitive rates.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> > competitive rates.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>       

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
Hans,

It's good that you took the time to understand the problem.

What would be acceptable is to revert the changes you made so the original behavior is restored. Your first commit tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and your second commit disables a demonstration of how the widget comments can be controlled.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:

> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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, 7:35 PM
> Ok this is what happened:
> 
> I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4 weeks ago. Some time ago i
> created a new
> component in hot deploy using the web.xml from the example
> component. I
> see the widget comments are not generated. I check
> widget.properties and
> see the parameter is set to true. I used this feature
> before and never
> had a problem. I see that in widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled
> class the
> 'context stuff' is changing true to false.
> 
> I not really see the benefit of this code, why would
> somebody want to
> change this setting by the context content? However, as
> long as the
> parameter in widget properties works, then i am fine. So i
> made the
> change that this parameter can only be overridden if the
> widget comments
> are switched of.
> 
> I now see that the comments in the example component are
> switched off in
> web.xml? I also do not understand this, especially the
> example component
> should show comments?
> 
> I avoid this confusion in the future I added a comment in
> widget.properties that only 'false' can be overridden and
> commented out
> the code in web.xml of the example component.
> 
> I expect this should be acceptable to everybody?
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> > Hi Hans,
> > 
> > Two points:
> > 1.  Calm down, this is just a discussion. 
> Telling Adrian to look at the code is perfectly valid,
> getting mad and making threats is not
> > 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.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Scott
> > 
> > On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> > 
> > > please check the code before you comment?
> > > 
> > > i changed it because the comments were not shown
> by default anymore as
> > > was originally.
> > > 
> > > If you go that far , i will go so far and will
> use my veto and revert
> > > the code that added this context stuff? 'true' in
> the properties file
> > > should always show the widgets comments
> irrespective of the context.
> > > 
> > > no wonder there aren't any significant changes in
> the last few
> > > months ....
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Hans
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47 -0700, Adrian Crum
> wrote:
> > >> Then you should change the description, not
> the code. The intended behavior is:
> > >> 
> > >> The properties setting is the default, it can
> be overridden in the web.xml file (application-wide
> setting), or in the context (screen-specific setting).
> > >> 
> > >> -Adrian
> > >> 
> > >> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
> > >>> 
> > >>> 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 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
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>> Author: hansbak
> > >>>>> Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57
> 2010
> > >>>>> New Revision: 961684
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > >>>>> Log:
> > >>>>> make
> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
> > >>> descriptions states: Widget boundary
> comments are enabled by
> > >>> setting widgetVerbose true in the context
> Map, OR by setting
> > >>> widget.verbose=true in widget.properties.
> And not let the
> > >>> context override the widget.properties
> setting
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Modified:
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Modified:
> > >>>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>
> ==============================================================================
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > >>> (original)
> > >>>>> +++
> > >>>
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > >>> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > >>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package
> org.ofbiz.widget;
> > >>>>> import java.io.Serializable;
> > >>>>> import java.util.Map;
> > >>>>> import org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > >>>>> +import
> org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > >>>>> import
> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > >>>>> import
> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class
> ModelWidget
> > >>> implements Seri
> > >>>>>     */
> > >>>>>    public static
> boolean
> > >>>
> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends
> > >>> Object> context) {
> > >>>>>       
> boolean
> > >>> result =
> > >>>
> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> > >>> "widget.verbose"));
> > >>>>> -        if
> (context != null)
> > >>> {
> > >>>>> +        if
> (result == false
> > >>> && context != null) {
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>   String str = (String)
> > >>>
> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>   if (str != null) {
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>   result =
> "true".equals(str);
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>> 
> > >>> -- 
> > >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> competitive rates.
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> competitive rates.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Ok this is what happened:

I upgraded ofbiz from about 3-4 weeks ago. Some time ago i created a new
component in hot deploy using the web.xml from the example component. I
see the widget comments are not generated. I check widget.properties and
see the parameter is set to true. I used this feature before and never
had a problem. I see that in widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled class the
'context stuff' is changing true to false.

I not really see the benefit of this code, why would somebody want to
change this setting by the context content? However, as long as the
parameter in widget properties works, then i am fine. So i made the
change that this parameter can only be overridden if the widget comments
are switched of.

I now see that the comments in the example component are switched off in
web.xml? I also do not understand this, especially the example component
should show comments?

I avoid this confusion in the future I added a comment in
widget.properties that only 'false' can be overridden and commented out
the code in web.xml of the example component.

I expect this should be acceptable to everybody?

Regards,
Hans



On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:28 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
> Hi Hans,
> 
> Two points:
> 1.  Calm down, this is just a discussion.  Telling Adrian to look at the code is perfectly valid, getting mad and making threats is not
> 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.
> 
> Regards
> Scott
> 
> On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
> > please check the code before you comment?
> > 
> > i changed it because the comments were not shown by default anymore as
> > was originally.
> > 
> > If you go that far , i will go so far and will use my veto and revert
> > the code that added this context stuff? 'true' in the properties file
> > should always show the widgets comments irrespective of the context.
> > 
> > no wonder there aren't any significant changes in the last few
> > months ....
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Hans
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> Then you should change the description, not the code. The intended behavior is:
> >> 
> >> The properties setting is the default, it can be overridden in the web.xml file (application-wide setting), or in the context (screen-specific setting).
> >> 
> >> -Adrian
> >> 
> >> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
> >>> 
> >>> 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 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
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Author: hansbak
> >>>>> Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> >>>>> New Revision: 961684
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> >>>>> Log:
> >>>>> make widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
> >>> descriptions states: Widget boundary comments are enabled by
> >>> setting widgetVerbose true in the context Map, OR by setting
> >>> widget.verbose=true in widget.properties. And not let the
> >>> context override the widget.properties setting
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Modified:
> >>>>> 
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Modified:
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> >>>>> 
> >>> ==============================================================================
> >>>>> ---
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>> (original)
> >>>>> +++
> >>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> >>> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> >>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package org.ofbiz.widget;
> >>>>> import java.io.Serializable;
> >>>>> import java.util.Map;
> >>>>> import org.w3c.dom.Element;
> >>>>> +import org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> >>>>> import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> >>>>> import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class ModelWidget
> >>> implements Seri
> >>>>>     */
> >>>>>    public static boolean
> >>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends
> >>> Object> context) {
> >>>>>        boolean
> >>> result =
> >>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> >>> "widget.verbose"));
> >>>>> -        if (context != null)
> >>> {
> >>>>> +        if (result == false
> >>> && context != null) {
> >>>>> 
> >>>   String str = (String)
> >>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> >>>>> 
> >>>   if (str != null) {
> >>>>> 
> >>>   result = "true".equals(str);
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> >>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> >>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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 exist.  When required, the PMC as a group can make binding decisions but not individuals.
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> "Votes on Code Modification
> 
> For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, but -1 votes are vetos and kill the proposal dead until all vetoers withdraw their -1 votes.
> Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus, three +1 votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
> 
> And you are correct, binding votes are the ones of PMC members.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Jacopo
> 
>

Re: Voting on code changes was svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
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 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 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
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> "Votes on Code Modification
>>
>> For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal,
>> but -1 votes are vetos and kill the proposal dead until all vetoers
>> withdraw their -1 votes.
>> Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus, three +1
>> votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
>>
>> And you are correct, binding votes are the ones of PMC members.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>

Voting on code changes was svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
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 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
>
> Specifically:
>
> "Votes on Code Modification
>
> For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, but -1 votes are vetos and kill the proposal dead until all vetoers withdraw their -1 votes.
> Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus, three +1 votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
>
> And you are correct, binding votes are the ones of PMC members.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
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 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
>
> Specifically:
>
> "Votes on Code Modification
>
> For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, but -1 votes are vetos and kill the proposal dead until all vetoers withdraw their -1 votes.
> Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus, three +1 votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
>
> And you are correct, binding votes are the ones of PMC members.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
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

Specifically:

"Votes on Code Modification

For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, but -1 votes are vetos and kill the proposal dead until all vetoers withdraw their -1 votes.
Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus, three +1 votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."

And you are correct, binding votes are the ones of PMC members.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Hi Hans,

Two points:
1.  Calm down, this is just a discussion.  Telling Adrian to look at the code is perfectly valid, getting mad and making threats is not
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.

Regards
Scott

On 9/07/2010, at 12:17 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> please check the code before you comment?
> 
> i changed it because the comments were not shown by default anymore as
> was originally.
> 
> If you go that far , i will go so far and will use my veto and revert
> the code that added this context stuff? 'true' in the properties file
> should always show the widgets comments irrespective of the context.
> 
> no wonder there aren't any significant changes in the last few
> months ....
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> Then you should change the description, not the code. The intended behavior is:
>> 
>> The properties setting is the default, it can be overridden in the web.xml file (application-wide setting), or in the context (screen-specific setting).
>> 
>> -Adrian
>> 
>> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
>>> 
>>> 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 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
>>>> 
>>>> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>> Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
>>>>> New Revision: 961684
>>>>> 
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> make widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
>>> descriptions states: Widget boundary comments are enabled by
>>> setting widgetVerbose true in the context Map, OR by setting
>>> widget.verbose=true in widget.properties. And not let the
>>> context override the widget.properties setting
>>>>> 
>>>>> Modified:
>>>>> 
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>> 
>>>>> Modified:
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
>>>>> 
>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>> ---
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>> (original)
>>>>> +++
>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
>>> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package org.ofbiz.widget;
>>>>> import java.io.Serializable;
>>>>> import java.util.Map;
>>>>> import org.w3c.dom.Element;
>>>>> +import org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
>>>>> import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
>>>>> import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
>>>>> 
>>>>> @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class ModelWidget
>>> implements Seri
>>>>>     */
>>>>>    public static boolean
>>> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends
>>> Object> context) {
>>>>>        boolean
>>> result =
>>> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
>>> "widget.verbose"));
>>>>> -        if (context != null)
>>> {
>>>>> +        if (result == false
>>> && context != null) {
>>>>> 
>>>   String str = (String)
>>> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
>>>>> 
>>>   if (str != null) {
>>>>> 
>>>   result = "true".equals(str);
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:
> please check the code before you
> comment?

I did.

> i changed it because the comments were not shown by default
> anymore as
> was originally.

Give an example please. As far as I can tell, the comments worked exactly as they should.

> If you go that far , i will go so far and will use my veto
> and revert
> the code that added this context stuff? 'true' in the
> properties file
> should always show the widgets comments irrespective of the
> context.

Says who? The original design was exactly what I described in my reply. Before this commit, comments were enabled on all applications except Example - whose comments are turned off in web.xml. This commit breaks that behavior.

Threats of commit wars are not constructive, and they certainly don't demonstrate a community spirit. Perhaps you should consider understanding the code before changing it, and then *listening* to the advice and comments of others. You might find that the whole process goes smoother that way.

> no wonder there aren't any significant changes in the last
> few
> months ....
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > Then you should change the description, not the code.
> The intended behavior is:
> > 
> > The properties setting is the default, it can be
> overridden in the web.xml file (application-wide setting),
> or in the context (screen-specific setting).
> > 
> > -Adrian
> > 
> > --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
> > > 
> > > 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 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
> > > > 
> > > > On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Author: hansbak
> > > > > Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > > > New Revision: 961684
> > > > > 
> > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > > > > Log:
> > > > > make widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work
> as the
> > > descriptions states: Widget boundary comments are
> enabled by
> > > setting widgetVerbose true in the context Map, OR
> by setting
> > > widget.verbose=true in widget.properties. And not
> let the
> > > context override the widget.properties setting
> > > > > 
> > > > > Modified:
> > > > >   
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > > 
> > > > > Modified:
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > > > >
> > >
> ==============================================================================
> > > > > ---
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > (original)
> > > > > +++
> > >
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package
> org.ofbiz.widget;
> > > > > import java.io.Serializable;
> > > > > import java.util.Map;
> > > > > import org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > > > > +import org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > > > > import
> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > > > > import
> org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > > > > 
> > > > > @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class
> ModelWidget
> > > implements Seri
> > > > >      */
> > > > >     public static
> boolean
> > > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ?
> extends
> > > Object> context) {
> > > > >     
>    boolean
> > > result =
> > >
> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> > > "widget.verbose"));
> > > > > -        if
> (context != null)
> > > {
> > > > > +        if (result
> == false
> > > && context != null) {
> > > > >         
> > >    String str = (String)
> > > context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > > > >         
> > >    if (str != null) {
> > > > >         
>    
> > >    result = "true".equals(str);
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for
> competitive rates.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >       
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
please check the code before you comment?

i changed it because the comments were not shown by default anymore as
was originally.

If you go that far , i will go so far and will use my veto and revert
the code that added this context stuff? 'true' in the properties file
should always show the widgets comments irrespective of the context.

no wonder there aren't any significant changes in the last few
months ....

Regards,
Hans


On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 04:47 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Then you should change the description, not the code. The intended behavior is:
> 
> The properties setting is the default, it can be overridden in the web.xml file (application-wide setting), or in the context (screen-specific setting).
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
> > 
> > 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 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
> > > 
> > > On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Author: hansbak
> > > > Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > > New Revision: 961684
> > > > 
> > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > > > Log:
> > > > make widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
> > descriptions states: Widget boundary comments are enabled by
> > setting widgetVerbose true in the context Map, OR by setting
> > widget.verbose=true in widget.properties. And not let the
> > context override the widget.properties setting
> > > > 
> > > > Modified:
> > > >   
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > 
> > > > Modified:
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > > >
> > ==============================================================================
> > > > ---
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > (original)
> > > > +++
> > ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package org.ofbiz.widget;
> > > > import java.io.Serializable;
> > > > import java.util.Map;
> > > > import org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > > > +import org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > > > import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > > > import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > > > 
> > > > @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class ModelWidget
> > implements Seri
> > > >      */
> > > >     public static boolean
> > widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends
> > Object> context) {
> > > >         boolean
> > result =
> > "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> > "widget.verbose"));
> > > > -        if (context != null)
> > {
> > > > +        if (result == false
> > && context != null) {
> > > >         
> >    String str = (String)
> > context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > > >         
> >    if (str != null) {
> > > >             
> >    result = "true".equals(str);
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>       

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
Then you should change the description, not the code. The intended behavior is:

The properties setting is the default, it can be overridden in the web.xml file (application-wide setting), or in the context (screen-specific setting).

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com> wrote:

> From: Hans Bakker <ma...@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.
> 
> 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 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
> > 
> > On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Author: hansbak
> > > Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > New Revision: 961684
> > > 
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > make widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the
> descriptions states: Widget boundary comments are enabled by
> setting widgetVerbose true in the context Map, OR by setting
> widget.verbose=true in widget.properties. And not let the
> context override the widget.properties setting
> > > 
> > > Modified:
> > >   
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > 
> > > Modified:
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > >
> ==============================================================================
> > > ---
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> (original)
> > > +++
> ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package org.ofbiz.widget;
> > > import java.io.Serializable;
> > > import java.util.Map;
> > > import org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > > +import org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > > import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > > import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > > 
> > > @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class ModelWidget
> implements Seri
> > >      */
> > >     public static boolean
> widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends
> Object> context) {
> > >         boolean
> result =
> "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget",
> "widget.verbose"));
> > > -        if (context != null)
> {
> > > +        if (result == false
> && context != null) {
> > >         
>    String str = (String)
> context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> > >         
>    if (str != null) {
> > >             
>    result = "true".equals(str);
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r961684 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java

Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.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 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
> 
> On 8/07/2010, at 9:49 PM, hansbak@apache.org wrote:
> 
> > Author: hansbak
> > Date: Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > New Revision: 961684
> > 
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=961684&view=rev
> > Log:
> > make widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled work as the descriptions states: Widget boundary comments are enabled by setting widgetVerbose true in the context Map, OR by setting widget.verbose=true in widget.properties. And not let the context override the widget.properties setting
> > 
> > Modified:
> >    ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > 
> > Modified: ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java?rev=961684&r1=961683&r2=961684&view=diff
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java (original)
> > +++ ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/ModelWidget.java Thu Jul  8 09:49:57 2010
> > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ package org.ofbiz.widget;
> > import java.io.Serializable;
> > import java.util.Map;
> > import org.w3c.dom.Element;
> > +import org.ofbiz.base.util.Debug;
> > import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilGenerics;
> > import org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilProperties;
> > 
> > @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ public class ModelWidget implements Seri
> >      */
> >     public static boolean widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled(Map<String, ? extends Object> context) {
> >         boolean result = "true".equals(UtilProperties.getPropertyValue("widget", "widget.verbose"));
> > -        if (context != null) {
> > +        if (result == false && context != null) {
> >             String str = (String) context.get(enableBoundaryCommentsParam);
> >             if (str != null) {
> >                 result = "true".equals(str);
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.