I agree, and you are right, there is no right answer, and it's up to you, Matt, and Rickard to help provide this. My opinion is that adding these two things would simplify stuff, but my opinion is secondary to the WW developers. I'm working on my OpenSymphony guidelines doc and hopefully I can send out a draft tonight. I promised it a long time ago, but I think it's really time I got something together. I'd like everyone (especially the WW guys) to take a look at it and provide feedback. Also, please email me directly with any particular issues you'd like addressed.
-Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maurice C. Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions > Patrick, > > Easy has nothing to do with it. Adding redundant functionality all > over the place will make the framework more difficult to use, because > new users won't know which function is the right one for them (even tho > there is no right answer). To me, keeping confusing options like these > tags out of the repository *is* a big deal. WebWork is supposed to be > simple and easy to use. > > -Maurice > > > On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 05:45 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > > I'd say it'd be pretty easy to add two new tags as well. And I still > > think > > this is a big deal out of nothing. But I guess this all comes back to > > needing a defined way to propose changes to projects. Ideally, there > > should > > be some discussion for a few days, then an official proposal, then a > > vote on > > the official proposal. > > > > -Pat > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:03 PM > > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions > > > > > >> No! one easy solution, which is point 1 below. > >> > >> On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 05:48 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote: > >> > >>> This is again a case of making a big deal out of a simple issue... > >>> two > >>> EASY > >>> solutions: > >>> > >>> 1) document it > >>> 2) provide <ww:push/> as well as <ww:print/>. > >>> > >>> -Pat > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:30 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions > >>> > >>> > >>>> I'm with Hani - property tag should stay as is. > >>>> > >>>> IMHO it's a documentation problem that is easily solved - once you > >>>> understand it - it's simple? > >>>> > >>>> For the dummies: > >>>> > >>>> <ww:property> has TWO uses: > >>>> > >>>> 1: <ww:property value="x" /> will grab the value of x and print it > >>>> 2: <ww:property value="x"> ... </ww:property> will grab the value of > >>>> x and > >>>> make it 'available' between the tags. > >>>> > >>>> That's it! > >>>> > >>>> Some more examples of fun to be had (from my 'teach ww to the > >>>> coworkers' > >>>> spiel) > >>>> > >>>> <ww:property value="x/y"> will print getX().getY() > >>>> > >>>> <ww:property /> will print what's on the top of the stack (very > >>>> useful to > >>>> debug where you are! > >>>> > >>>> Why is #2 above useful? It makes your code simpler and easier to > >>>> read! > >>>> > >>>> <ww:property value="someUser"> > >>>> <ww:property value="name" /> > >>>> <ww:property value="fullName" /> > >>>> <ww:property value="email" /> > >>>> </ww:property> > >>>> > >>>> -mike > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 1/11/02 9:08 AM, "Hani Suleiman" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the > >>>> words: > >>>> > >>>>> While I agree that it's somewhat unintuitive to have one tag serve > >>>>> these two purposes, I don't think it should be changed. If someone > >>>>> were > >>>>> confused by how it worked, they'd go to the docs that talk about > >>>>> that > >>>>> tag, which would in turn describe both modes, if you will. That > >>>>> 'clarity' can come across as docs, it doesn't require a > >>>>> non-backward > >>>>> compatible code change. To use your OS analogy, how would you like > >>>>> it > >>>>> if a new distro of linux decided that some unix command is > >>>>> unintuitive, > >>>>> and decided to modify its name to better reflect its function, > >>>>> rather > >>>>> than document its existing 'quirks' in a man page? > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 04:55 PM, boxed wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) No - the action tag is useful! > >>>>>> Yea, Pat gave a good creative example of why it's good. I find > >>>>>> your > >>>>>> argument > >>>>>> very enlightening though. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Why? The property tag is flexible - not confusing! > >>>>>> Unix has two commands: cd and cat. cd changes directory. cat > >>>>>> prints > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> contents of a file. Two different commands to do two different > >>>>>> things. > >>>>>> In > >>>>>> webwork however we have a single command to do both these things > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> it's > >>>>>> called "property", which btw doesn't really say much. Had an > >>>>>> operating > >>>>>> system had a command like that you would not be pleased: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> c:\> property foo > >>>>>> c:\foo>property bar.txt > >>>>>> contents of bar.txt > >>>>>> c:\foo> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How logical is that really? Besides the obvious readability > >>>>>> aspects > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> having a tag for printing a property and another for modifying the > >>>>>> stack, > >>>>>> the code for PropertyTag (or rather BasicPropertyTag in the CVS > >>>>>> version) is > >>>>>> rather ugly due to the fact that it's really two tags. If nothing > >>>>>> else, the > >>>>>> code should reflect this with one PrintPropertyTag and another > >>>>>> PushPropertyTag. Changing BasicPropertyTag to do exactly what it > >>>>>> does > >>>>>> not > >>>>>> but doing it by extending PrintPropertyTag would be trivial and > >>>>>> open up > >>>>>> possibilities for the users. It would also make the code more > >>>>>> orthogonal and > >>>>>> readable. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> // Anders Hovmöller > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > >>>>>> of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > >>>>>> Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > >>>>>> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > >>>>> of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > >>>>> Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > >>>>> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > >>>> of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > >>>> Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > >>>> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > >>> of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > >>> Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > >>> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------- > >> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > >> of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > >> Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > >> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > > of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > > Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
