Re: RTFM messages
yeah! reading code! thats also my philosophy: Doc lies, code doesn't johan On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Matthew Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just want to add my appreciation to all the help I got here, especially from Igor. Sometime I receive the answer instantly, even on weekend! One thing I learn to do is not only read the javadoc but read the code. A lot of the component stuffs are pretty easy to follow, especially if you use something like Eclipse's Java Browsing. Go Wicket!
RE: RTFM messages
Maybe that is the problem - 10% of the people give 90% of the answers. This means they have less time to explain stuff in detail. However, you are right - the answers are fast (within minutes) and, even if not complete, usually give enough information to find the right place to dig. I do in fact search all the sources I can find before asking the list, including: wicketstuff.org, Google (Nabble has excellent Wicket stuff), the list archives, and Wicket In Action. As for explaining it to new users myself, I would if I knew the answer! I am still a newbie, although if I have anything to say about it, we will be using Wicket for a long time to come, so I will eventually become expert at it. The code is of extremely high quality, and one taste of using it is enough to make me never want to touch another front-end framework again. Good work all. -Andrew -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Thomerson Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 2:26 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: RTFM messages I have to add here that I have asked quite a few questions on this list, and always received a plethora of helpful information - 90% of the time from core contributors. This list is the best open source mailing list I have ever subscribed to or asked questions on. Many times I have sent emails to other user lists, even active ones, with questions I could not find the answer to, and never received a response - at all. The entire Wicket community is very friendly and helpful. And, honestly, if I asked a question for which there were an answer in the javadoc - I would appreciate Martijn's answer - it would remind me to look for it myself (which we sometimes get so busy we forget) - and it has much better longterm benefit than giving a direct answer, or even copy-and-paste the javadoc. Of course, Andrew, you always have the option of explaining it to the new user, too - that might help with the wide spread adoption. I see from your message history that you love Wicket like the rest of it, and have received many fine answers from the same core committers that you criticize here. Just saying - it goes both ways. THANK YOU WONDERFUL WICKET COMMUNITY AND ESPECIALLY THE CORE COMMITTERS (Igor, Martijn, Johan, and everyone) My 2 cents On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM, C. Bergström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 21:01 +0200, Martijn Dashorst wrote: On 5/1/08, Andrew Broderick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The guy asked a simple question. And I answered it is a simple manner: read the javadoc, if that doesn't help you, tell us what is wrong. All condensed in a single question. You chose to read it as a RTFM. Did you ever read [1]? commentary I've worked with Martijn a bit and overall I really appreciate his concise and clear answers. On first read of his post you can surely feel a defensive tone, but really this is more an example of how passionate Wicket devs are about quality not only in code but documentation. Tact sold separately /commentary ./C [1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htmlhttp://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/faqs/smart-questions.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ The information in this email or in any file attached hereto is intended only for the personal and confiden- tial use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is propri- etary and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communica- tion is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product. Email trans- mission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error- free. P6070214 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RTFM messages
i am quite amazed by the quality of help people get on wicket-user and ##wicket. most highly paid service contracts don't give this level of service. Martijn Dashorst wrote: On 5/1/08, Andrew Broderick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The guy asked a simple question. And I answered it is a simple manner: read the javadoc, if that doesn't help you, tell us what is wrong. All condensed in a single question. You chose to read it as a RTFM. Did you ever read [1]? If there's one fault with this otherwise great mailing list, it's the attitude that the old-timers have towards the newbies. WTF? Why is it so hard to actually use the stuff we have provided? We write javadoc, we have a wiki, we are writing a book, spend a lot of our free time working on wicket related stuff, including answering questions on this list. There is no payment for us in all of this (if you think that the book will bring us money, then write your own and see if it works out for you) Is it then too much to ask that people actually read the javadoc and if you don't understand the javadoc, *THEN* ask the question related to the javadoc? So, guys, if you want Wicket to attain widespread adoption, please don't shoot back at anyone who asks a question with a response of RTFM. Take the time to explain stuff. users@ had 2186 messages in April, 37% of that traffic came from 10 people. 4 of them were so-called old-timers, not asking questions but helping out. 25% of traffic in April came from core contributors. So please don't tell me we are not helping out. What do you think the javadoc is for? Do you think we write javadoc to increase our commit count? Didn't we already put in the time to explain it? Did you consider that the ratio of users asking questions that they can answer themselves versus the contributors that actually answer is roughly 30 : 1, putting us (the old-timers) at a serious disadvantage? (This also contributes to the Wicket knowledge base, as it remains in the list archives, and hence shows up in Google searches). Why do you think we write the javadocs? So people can READ them. When people don't take the time to actually read the fricking javadoc, what does make you think that people will use google, the wiki or the mailing list archive? Martijn [1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-RTFM-messages-tp17007353p17025623.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RTFM messages
On 5/1/08, Andrew Broderick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The guy asked a simple question. And I answered it is a simple manner: read the javadoc, if that doesn't help you, tell us what is wrong. All condensed in a single question. You chose to read it as a RTFM. Did you ever read [1]? If there's one fault with this otherwise great mailing list, it's the attitude that the old-timers have towards the newbies. WTF? Why is it so hard to actually use the stuff we have provided? We write javadoc, we have a wiki, we are writing a book, spend a lot of our free time working on wicket related stuff, including answering questions on this list. There is no payment for us in all of this (if you think that the book will bring us money, then write your own and see if it works out for you) Is it then too much to ask that people actually read the javadoc and if you don't understand the javadoc, *THEN* ask the question related to the javadoc? So, guys, if you want Wicket to attain widespread adoption, please don't shoot back at anyone who asks a question with a response of RTFM. Take the time to explain stuff. users@ had 2186 messages in April, 37% of that traffic came from 10 people. 4 of them were so-called old-timers, not asking questions but helping out. 25% of traffic in April came from core contributors. So please don't tell me we are not helping out. What do you think the javadoc is for? Do you think we write javadoc to increase our commit count? Didn't we already put in the time to explain it? Did you consider that the ratio of users asking questions that they can answer themselves versus the contributors that actually answer is roughly 30 : 1, putting us (the old-timers) at a serious disadvantage? (This also contributes to the Wicket knowledge base, as it remains in the list archives, and hence shows up in Google searches). Why do you think we write the javadocs? So people can READ them. When people don't take the time to actually read the fricking javadoc, what does make you think that people will use google, the wiki or the mailing list archive? Martijn [1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RTFM messages
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 21:01 +0200, Martijn Dashorst wrote: On 5/1/08, Andrew Broderick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The guy asked a simple question. And I answered it is a simple manner: read the javadoc, if that doesn't help you, tell us what is wrong. All condensed in a single question. You chose to read it as a RTFM. Did you ever read [1]? commentary I've worked with Martijn a bit and overall I really appreciate his concise and clear answers. On first read of his post you can surely feel a defensive tone, but really this is more an example of how passionate Wicket devs are about quality not only in code but documentation. Tact sold separately /commentary ./C [1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RTFM messages
On 5/1/08, C. Bergström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tact sold separately ROFLMAO Martijn -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RTFM messages
I have to add here that I have asked quite a few questions on this list, and always received a plethora of helpful information - 90% of the time from core contributors. This list is the best open source mailing list I have ever subscribed to or asked questions on. Many times I have sent emails to other user lists, even active ones, with questions I could not find the answer to, and never received a response - at all. The entire Wicket community is very friendly and helpful. And, honestly, if I asked a question for which there were an answer in the javadoc - I would appreciate Martijn's answer - it would remind me to look for it myself (which we sometimes get so busy we forget) - and it has much better longterm benefit than giving a direct answer, or even copy-and-paste the javadoc. Of course, Andrew, you always have the option of explaining it to the new user, too - that might help with the wide spread adoption. I see from your message history that you love Wicket like the rest of it, and have received many fine answers from the same core committers that you criticize here. Just saying - it goes both ways. THANK YOU WONDERFUL WICKET COMMUNITY AND ESPECIALLY THE CORE COMMITTERS (Igor, Martijn, Johan, and everyone) My 2 cents On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM, C. Bergström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 21:01 +0200, Martijn Dashorst wrote: On 5/1/08, Andrew Broderick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The guy asked a simple question. And I answered it is a simple manner: read the javadoc, if that doesn't help you, tell us what is wrong. All condensed in a single question. You chose to read it as a RTFM. Did you ever read [1]? commentary I've worked with Martijn a bit and overall I really appreciate his concise and clear answers. On first read of his post you can surely feel a defensive tone, but really this is more an example of how passionate Wicket devs are about quality not only in code but documentation. Tact sold separately /commentary ./C [1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htmlhttp://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/faqs/smart-questions.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RTFM messages
+1 Martijn Dashorst wrote: On 5/1/08, Andrew Broderick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The guy asked a simple question. And I answered it is a simple manner: read the javadoc, if that doesn't help you, tell us what is wrong. All condensed in a single question. You chose to read it as a RTFM. Did you ever read [1]? If there's one fault with this otherwise great mailing list, it's the attitude that the old-timers have towards the newbies. WTF? Why is it so hard to actually use the stuff we have provided? We write javadoc, we have a wiki, we are writing a book, spend a lot of our free time working on wicket related stuff, including answering questions on this list. There is no payment for us in all of this (if you think that the book will bring us money, then write your own and see if it works out for you) Is it then too much to ask that people actually read the javadoc and if you don't understand the javadoc, *THEN* ask the question related to the javadoc? So, guys, if you want Wicket to attain widespread adoption, please don't shoot back at anyone who asks a question with a response of RTFM. Take the time to explain stuff. users@ had 2186 messages in April, 37% of that traffic came from 10 people. 4 of them were so-called old-timers, not asking questions but helping out. 25% of traffic in April came from core contributors. So please don't tell me we are not helping out. What do you think the javadoc is for? Do you think we write javadoc to increase our commit count? Didn't we already put in the time to explain it? Did you consider that the ratio of users asking questions that they can answer themselves versus the contributors that actually answer is roughly 30 : 1, putting us (the old-timers) at a serious disadvantage? (This also contributes to the Wicket knowledge base, as it remains in the list archives, and hence shows up in Google searches). Why do you think we write the javadocs? So people can READ them. When people don't take the time to actually read the fricking javadoc, what does make you think that people will use google, the wiki or the mailing list archive? Martijn [1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RTFM messages
+1 Jeremy Thomerson wrote: I have to add here that I have asked quite a few questions on this list, and always received a plethora of helpful information - 90% of the time from core contributors. This list is the best open source mailing list I have ever subscribed to or asked questions on. Many times I have sent emails to other user lists, even active ones, with questions I could not find the answer to, and never received a response - at all. The entire Wicket community is very friendly and helpful. And, honestly, if I asked a question for which there were an answer in the javadoc - I would appreciate Martijn's answer - it would remind me to look for it myself (which we sometimes get so busy we forget) - and it has much better longterm benefit than giving a direct answer, or even copy-and-paste the javadoc. Of course, Andrew, you always have the option of explaining it to the new user, too - that might help with the wide spread adoption. I see from your message history that you love Wicket like the rest of it, and have received many fine answers from the same core committers that you criticize here. Just saying - it goes both ways. THANK YOU WONDERFUL WICKET COMMUNITY AND ESPECIALLY THE CORE COMMITTERS (Igor, Martijn, Johan, and everyone) My 2 cents On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM, C. Bergström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 21:01 +0200, Martijn Dashorst wrote: On 5/1/08, Andrew Broderick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The guy asked a simple question. And I answered it is a simple manner: read the javadoc, if that doesn't help you, tell us what is wrong. All condensed in a single question. You chose to read it as a RTFM. Did you ever read [1]? commentary I've worked with Martijn a bit and overall I really appreciate his concise and clear answers. On first read of his post you can surely feel a defensive tone, but really this is more an example of how passionate Wicket devs are about quality not only in code but documentation. Tact sold separately /commentary ./C [1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htmlhttp://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/faqs/smart-questions.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RTFM messages
On 5/1/08, Jeremy Thomerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: THANK YOU WONDERFUL WICKET COMMUNITY AND ESPECIALLY THE CORE COMMITTERS thx, I appreciate it. However, this is not what I'm personally after. I enjoy positive feedback like the next guy, but I really like it when people respect my time and effort. This means doing some homework yourself before asking questions: search the archives, read the wiki, use google, read the javadoc, set some break points and step through the code. Attach the sources of wicket to your workspace so you can take a look under the hood and see what is happening there (mvn eclipse:eclipse -DdownloadSources=true). You get a wonderful framework for free, you get pretty much unlimited support for free, all we ask is that you invest time and effort before asking questions on the lists. That's all. Thank you all for choosing Wicket and helping out in the community. Martijn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RTFM messages
Just want to add my appreciation to all the help I got here, especially from Igor. Sometime I receive the answer instantly, even on weekend! One thing I learn to do is not only read the javadoc but read the code. A lot of the component stuffs are pretty easy to follow, especially if you use something like Eclipse's Java Browsing. Go Wicket!
Re: RTFM messages
you are welcome -igor On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Matthew Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just want to add my appreciation to all the help I got here, especially from Igor. Sometime I receive the answer instantly, even on weekend! One thing I learn to do is not only read the javadoc but read the code. A lot of the component stuffs are pretty easy to follow, especially if you use something like Eclipse's Java Browsing. Go Wicket! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
