Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
> * Marc Portier:
>
>> Anyways, this whole process of finding out what and how kind of
>> convinced me that we can in fact revert the change. (and not add
>> an attribute)
>
> That is the simple way.
It's called an optimum: achieving the desired goal with the least cost
("Perfection is achieved not when...")
> But ending up with empty tags for all
> widgets having the null value is not satisfactory.
You're barking up the wrong three.
If you think optional text-nodes in XML-elements are garbage, you should
turn to the w3c to get the recommendation fixed.
Removing the tags (and thus their attributes) just because you're
unhappy with empty text-nodes is ridiculous.
> And this
> also means that every convertor must check null *and* empty
> string. This also means that if you turn off leniency in the
> FormattingDateConvertor with lenient="false" attribute, you're
> SOL.
>
Sorry, I (again) can't find any valid argumentation in the above.
The current 'fix' shows all the signs of bad SOC:
(repeating myself now)
- it is not the responsibility of the 'save' to solve an issue occurring
after 'load' (note that the binding doesn't need to be used in both ways)
- it is is not the responsibility of the binding to solve converting
issues, there is a mechanism to delegate to convertors, if those need to
interpret "" as null, then they should just do that. If they can't due
to some flaw in the design, then some fix is needed there.
So frankly: All this stress on these false arguments, is just piling up
as more 'bad SOC'-evidence.
Badly enough applying the 'fix' to the wrong place also made it break.
> Anyway, let's close the discussion... I won't take the time to add
> the knob because
dude, currently this is not about "who" and "when" is doing things,
as Antonio's remark is making clear: this is about "what" to do (and
dare I still hope to get through: "what-not" to do)
As I see it: we need to come to an agreement/conclusion on this to avoid
a silly cvs-commit war.
That is why I opened the discussion, closing it without an outcome is
'not satisfactory'.
I'ld hate to see calling a vote over this just because we fail to see
reason.
> I don't use this binding API anymore.
(...)
> If someone shows interest we can always add it later.
In case you didn't notice: "myself" is showing interest "now"
I'ld like to revert the fix so things are back to normal in the upcoming
2.1.10 release.
-marc= (clearly running out of 2MP's)
--
Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
