Let's be specific: I emphastically agreed with revising the property tag, but refrained from voting either way (abstaining!) because I'm resigning from opensymphony as a whole. For why (in case you're not on the opensymphony-developers list), see http://enigmastation.com/Q702 .
--------------------------------------------------------- Joseph B. Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://enigmastation.com IT Consultant On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Hani Suleiman wrote: > Funny you should say that. Interesting that Erik (with 2 patches) counts as a > developer whereas I (with 3 ot more patches) do not. Epesh also didn't give a > +1, yet you felt free to assume he did. > > Anyways, you win. I give up. Feel free to turn webwork into whatever, it's not > worth arguing. Mob rule is as good a mechanism for product development as any, > it seems. > > Quoting Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > By all means, have a recount! All I'm saying is that the community has > > spoken (this is the best feel we can get for the community, so don't spout > > off about how the list isn't representative -- it has to be). You might > > like > > to operate under the pretense of making a well thought out decision, but at > > the end of the day, the majority wants to see this feature. And what a > > simple, non-relevant feature at that. I'm just pushing the issue because I > > want to see if WebWork will listen to people, of if those in charge are > > just > > going to be doing what they please no matter what everyone else asks of > > them. > > > > -Pat > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:50 AM > > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Property tag (beating the decomposed horse) > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
