I have notice quite different coding styles that just does not fit one person committing code from Hans account. Maybe getting each an account would better clarify who is committing what.
Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 9/12/2011 1:03 PM: > I don't think you should feel disqualified because you wrote the right > code intially! > Hans has an explanation, but democracy is majority. And Apache way is > vote and majority in such cases. Unfortunately there are no > other best ways than a vote. Now, as David remarked, last time we felt > like the United Nations in some conflicts: you need a > respected police or army to make the law respected... > > What I don't understand is why Hans can't keep his changes for himself > to let all the others happy (at least Adrian, Scott, David and I so far...) > > Jacques > > From: "Adrian Crum" <[email protected]> >> Maybe a vote is in order. I am not going to initiate one because I am >> the author of the original code, so I feel like I am >> disqualified. >> >> -Adrian >> >> On 9/12/2011 8:13 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>> Thanks Adrian, I understand what you're getting at exactly now. >>> >>> Yes, this is frustrating isn't it, and this pattern seems to come up >>> over and over. That's why I like the moderated community >>> approach better (as opposed to the Apache way), and I guess you know >>> my thoughts and approach on that based on my recent efforts… >>> >>> Still, I suppose that by the Apache way we should vote on this and >>> consider the results binding, and make the corresponding >>> changes. If someone goes against that vote result, then I'm not sure >>> what the Apache way is… i.e. what do you do about a commit >>> war? >>> >>> I don't know. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> Keep in mind that the original design is one that you participated >>>> in. The agreement on the setting precedence in the original >>>> Jira issue was this: >>>> >>>> widget.properties -> web.xml -> URL parameters >>>> >>>> where widget.properties is the global default, which can be >>>> overridden by a setting in web.xml, which can be overridden by >>>> screen widgets or scripts or whatever (via the current context Map). >>>> >>>> The design worked great. Then Hans changed it due to a >>>> misunderstanding of how the design works. Despite repeated explanations >>>> of how the design works, and requests from three PMC members to >>>> revert his change, he refused to change it and threatened the >>>> community with a commit war. Since then we have had a number of >>>> issues reported on the mailing list describing how his change >>>> makes the setting unusable. >>>> >>>> It amazes me that a single -1 vote vetoes a change in the Apache >>>> community, but three -1 votes from PMC members can't revert >>>> this obvious break in software design. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> On 9/12/2011 7:24 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> No. The approach suggested by (and committed by) Hans is that the >>>>> setting in the widget.properties file overrides any other >>>>> setting. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> On 9/12/2011 6:19 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> No one agrees with which approach? The approach that if you pass a >>>>>> widgetVerbose=true HTTP parameter that it should override >>>>>> the widget.properties setting? I agree with that approach… >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 12, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's the problem - no one agrees with that approach. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/12/2011 1:53 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>> I think I forgot to forward Hans's answer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 05:15 +0200, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>> widget.properties's widget.verbose setting has precedence over >>>>>>>>>> web.xml's widgetVerbose setting. So you can't use >>>>>>>>>> parameters.widgetVerbose to override widget.verbose to false. >>>>>>>>>> Is ModelWidget.widgetBoundaryCommentsEnabled() written this >>>>>>>>>> way for >>>>>>>>>> some reasons? >>>>>>>>> there was a lengthly discussion of this. As long as by default the >>>>>>>>> properties file is not overridden in web.xml is fine either way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Another issue is that these HTML boundary comments get >>>>>>>>>> outputted even though the view handler is set to "screencsv". In >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> widget-screen.xsd, the only way to invoke a template to >>>>>>>>>> produce CSV is using<html><html-template />, but this always adds >>>>>>>>>> HTML >>>>>>>>>> comments even if the output is CSV (see HtmlWidget class). >>>>>>>>>> Maybe we could introduce a<csv> element or something like >>>>>>>>>> that? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, both of those problems combined mean that there are no >>>>>>>>>> apparent clean ways to remove the HTML "template begin/end" >>>>>>>>>> boundary comments from the CSV output if you try to draw it >>>>>>>>>> with an *.ftl template. A workaround kludge for now is to >>>>>>>>>> invoke >>>>>>>>>> the FTL manually through a Groovy script. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacques > > >
