You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2007/03/26 12:45:27 UTC
Re: [Wicket-user] Wicket AJAX newbie
On 3/26/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I really don't understand what's the big deal here.
>
> The big deal is that there is a big discussion, and suddenly the
> change is committed. Don't we have a process for changes that are
> controversial, perhaps not for you, but for other committers (like
> me)?
And since the related issue was first closed because another dev
(Igor) didn't like the solution, I think this issue warranted a new,
clear proposal and a vote before applying it.
Martijn
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: [Wicket-user] Wicket AJAX newbie
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@apache.org>.
* Martijn Dashorst:
> I just want to add a thank you towards Vincent and Frédéric for
> staying with us in this (semi) heated discussion.
Indeed they are valiant and bold, I have fun working with them.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
Re: [Wicket-user] Wicket AJAX newbie
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
OK,
I just want to add a thank you towards Vincent and Frédéric for
staying with us in this (semi) heated discussion.
Martijn
On 3/26/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> agreed
>
> next time :)
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 3/26/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/26/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > we have reached a consensus in the discussion thread and it went quiet
> > so i
> > > assumed no one else had anything to say.
> > >
> > > like i said the controversy was over the fact that it would do too much
> > > magic/be automatic and that is why i closed the original jira issue as
> > wont
> > > fix. right now it is completely manual so i committed it because if you
> > dont
> > > use it explicitly it doesnt affect you. the basic idea behind it is the
> > > same, but the way it is implemented is completely different so we
> > wouldnt
> > > even be voting on what we have started out discussing.
> > >
> > > shall we have a vote still you think?
> >
> > It would have suited the discussion to get a summary of the proposal,
> > and see if no-one objects. Because after 64 messages in a thread, it
> > gets hard to see what actually has been proposed.
> >
> > Though I'm 0 on the subject.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > --
> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> > http://wicketframework.org
> >
>
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: [Wicket-user] Wicket AJAX newbie
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
agreed
next time :)
-igor
On 3/26/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/26/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > we have reached a consensus in the discussion thread and it went quiet
> so i
> > assumed no one else had anything to say.
> >
> > like i said the controversy was over the fact that it would do too much
> > magic/be automatic and that is why i closed the original jira issue as
> wont
> > fix. right now it is completely manual so i committed it because if you
> dont
> > use it explicitly it doesnt affect you. the basic idea behind it is the
> > same, but the way it is implemented is completely different so we
> wouldnt
> > even be voting on what we have started out discussing.
> >
> > shall we have a vote still you think?
>
> It would have suited the discussion to get a summary of the proposal,
> and see if no-one objects. Because after 64 messages in a thread, it
> gets hard to see what actually has been proposed.
>
> Though I'm 0 on the subject.
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
Re: [Wicket-user] Wicket AJAX newbie
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 3/26/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> we have reached a consensus in the discussion thread and it went quiet so i
> assumed no one else had anything to say.
>
> like i said the controversy was over the fact that it would do too much
> magic/be automatic and that is why i closed the original jira issue as wont
> fix. right now it is completely manual so i committed it because if you dont
> use it explicitly it doesnt affect you. the basic idea behind it is the
> same, but the way it is implemented is completely different so we wouldnt
> even be voting on what we have started out discussing.
>
> shall we have a vote still you think?
It would have suited the discussion to get a summary of the proposal,
and see if no-one objects. Because after 64 messages in a thread, it
gets hard to see what actually has been proposed.
Though I'm 0 on the subject.
Martijn
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: [Wicket-user] Wicket AJAX newbie
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
we have reached a consensus in the discussion thread and it went quiet so i
assumed no one else had anything to say.
like i said the controversy was over the fact that it would do too much
magic/be automatic and that is why i closed the original jira issue as wont
fix. right now it is completely manual so i committed it because if you dont
use it explicitly it doesnt affect you. the basic idea behind it is the
same, but the way it is implemented is completely different so we wouldnt
even be voting on what we have started out discussing.
shall we have a vote still you think?
-igor
On 3/26/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/26/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/26/07, Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I really don't understand what's the big deal here.
> >
> > The big deal is that there is a big discussion, and suddenly the
> > change is committed. Don't we have a process for changes that are
> > controversial, perhaps not for you, but for other committers (like
> > me)?
>
> And since the related issue was first closed because another dev
> (Igor) didn't like the solution, I think this issue warranted a new,
> clear proposal and a vote before applying it.
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
Re: [Wicket-user] Wicket AJAX newbie
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@apache.org>.
* Martijn Dashorst:
> And since the related issue was first closed because another dev
> (Igor) didn't like the solution, I think this issue warranted a
> new, clear proposal and a vote before applying it.
Indeed I think we should try to summarize the discussions once the
thread activity has slowed down, and respect a minimum delay of 72
hours to let everyone the opportunity to participate. And for a
vote, this kind of summary should be nearly mandatory.
These are my general feelings applicable to any issue, not this
one in particular.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/