Alright, following your ranting and raving on IRC, I'd like to know what the 'official' stance is regarding expressing opinions. I'll admit that my contribution to webwork has been minimal (but not zero). So, does this mean that I am not allowed to express opinions? That'd be fine by me, I'd just like to know if I'm playing fair by expressing disagreement with people who have the time to work on webwork. If committers are allowed to express opinions but you find me expressing mine to be so distasteful, then feel free to remove my commit access and ensuring that non-committers who disagree with you are properly admonished.
Quoting Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Honestly, I'm with Chris here. > > Hani, you have no right to vote something down if you don't even know the > issues involved. None what-so-ever. > > Hani, you also said: "Excellent! A great way of ensuring nobody is able to > use webwork without first going through lots of docs". Umm.. wasn't the > solution to this whole thing to write _more_ docs? I'm sorry, but on this > issue I really think that you, Maurice, and Rickard are way off base here. > You might not like Anders for the changes he made without asking, but this > this stubbornness is pretty sickening. > > -Pat > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:01 AM > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Property tag (beating the decomposed horse) > > > > It's a different approach I suppose. > > > > I didn't know of the TWO uses of the propertytag, let alone the 3 uses. > I'm not > > angry or irritated at anyone because of it, in fact, I was rather > delighted when > > I found out the other uses. I'm glad they're documented now. Most of all > > however, I like the fact that I was able to use propertytag without > reading any > > docs. I like the fact that I was using the valuestack without even > understanding > > what it is, or how and why it's working its magic. Maybe adding more tags > will > > make that easier, it just doesn't feel that way though based on all the > > discussion here. > > > > Quoting Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Agreed. While I'm not a regular WW user these days due to circumstances > > > beyond my control (and I use Velocity with WW rather that JSP anyway), > I > > > still try to keep abreast of WW's progress. From what I've read of this > > > debate, one thing is readily apparent. The existing property tag is > *not* > > > intuitive. To quote an earlier comment from Mike: > > > > > > "Well, I actually wrote the original two uses of the PropertyTag (which > you > > > are correct - is in fact 3, would you believe I didn't know about the > third > > > one? ;))" > > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong but I am sure that Mike uses WW extensively, > and > > > has > > > been doing so for quite some time. If even he didn't know all the > > > subtleties > > > of that tag, what chance does a newbie have? Documentation alone isn't > the > > > best solution - docs plus intuitive design is. Has anyone here ever > tried > > > to > > > use all the various permutations of the struts <html:select> tag for > > > iteration? There is a lot of documentation for that tag, and I've been > > > using > > > it for quite some time now. But almost without fail I still have to > either > > > cut'n'paste existing code, or refer to the documentation to get the > damn > > > thing working each and every time! > > > > > > I haven't looked at the replacement tags Anders has submitted so I > can't > > > comment on whether those are 'better' or not, but I would encourage > > > everyone > > > in this debate to think about what the taglib should look like in a > perfect > > > world, ie *without regard for what currently exists*. THAT should then > > > become the goal for XWork 2.0. Obviously backwards compatibility is > > > crucial, > > > but deprecation can take care of that if need be. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > "Jason Carreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > > > news:CD44D03584C7A249A3F86891B24EB8EA03FDCAB9@;ehost003.intermedia.net... > > > Yeah, not like the current ever-so-transparent ww:property tag that > > > everyone > > > just understands without any explanation. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:hani@;formicary.net] > > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:34 AM > > > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Property tag (beating the decomposed horse) > > > > > > > > > Excellent! A great way of ensuring nobody is able to use webwork > without > > > first going through lots of docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
