On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, [UTF-8] Rickard Ă–berg wrote: > Joseph Ottinger wrote: > > Well, note the quotes I used. "Correctness" can be taken a lot of ways. > > What I was referring to was buzzword-compatible correctness, where the > > comp sci grads are happy applying all of their new-found knowledge in ways > > that end up making the product less usable. Between usability and > > "correctness," I'll take usability. > > I see. My interpretation of "correctness" contains a high degree of > "usability" :-)
Think "property editors." Correct. Very "correct." Usable, but unused. > > This is sort of why I dislike the current xwork.xml structure - it's > > "correct" but unusable. (Well, it's usable, but *I* wouldn't want to use > > it.) > Agree completely. Whoever came up with that should be run out on a rail! :) :) :) > > As far as the validation... as long as the definition is clear, I'm happy. > Ok, good. I'd also like to add a request for formal scope for XWork (and webwork, too, for that matter, although it's too late.) A scope document would correct a lot of the issues people have, and reduce the learning curve, as well. It would also help you determine what was and was not within the domain of XWork - for example, a scope document woudl specify that the model was out of scope whereas a bridge to the data model was not (i.e., "Xwork will not provide connection pooling for you, nor a persistence layer at all, although your specific dispatcher may provide mechanisms in which you can persist changes made programmatically.") --------------------------------------------------------- Joseph B. Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://enigmastation.com IT Consultant ------------------------------------------------------- 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
