Martin,
No offense taken, I was just looking for clarification.
Thanks for the tips on submission - I had originally submitted that patch
before I knew there was a bug report already for it, but I'll be sure to
check next time.
Erik
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FormTag - call reset after instantiation
> Erik,
>
> I apologise if I offended by not making the exact changes you posted.
> Actually, there were two reasons for not applying the patch as-is.
>
> The first is that the patch, as copied from the archive, could not be
> applied directly. The patch utility complained about it, and wouldn't do
it.
> I thought it must be something to do with formatting, and fiddled with it
> for a while, but then gave up and made the changes manually.
>
> The second is directly related to the first, in that if the patch had
worked
> as is, I would have left it alone. In general, I agree with you that
> refactoring and cleaning up are good things to do. However, I guess I'm
not
> convinced that creating two new methods, each containing a single line of
> code, is that helpful. I felt it was more clear to use those lines of code
> directly, particularly as they are frequently seen across the Struts code
> base, and there was nothing different happening here.
>
> By the way, a good thing to do with patches is to attach them, as a file,
to
> the related bug report. That way, the content of the file (especially
white
> space and line wrapping) are preserved, and the patch should be able to be
> applied directly.
>
> Again, I apologise if I offended - that was certainly not my intent. And
> thanks for the patch!
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 3:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] FormTag - call reset after instantiation
>
>
> > Martin,
> >
> > Thanks for applying my patch. I haven't tested it yet, but I had one
> issue
> > to bring up regarding the patch you applied. You did not apply my
patch
> as
> > I had implemented it exactly. One of the things I did was to refactor
> > slightly so that getting the action mappings was pulled into a separate
> > method, as well as the findMapping method since both of these were done
in
> > other parts of the code as well. While what you applied appears fine
> > functionality-wise, I do think that refactoring and cleaning up some
code
> at
> > the same time is a worthy goal.
> >
> > Is there a reason my patch wasn't applied as-is?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Erik
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 10:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] FormTag - call reset after instantiation
> >
> >
> > > I just checked in this change. Please let me know if you see any
> problems.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin Cooper
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 8:44 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] FormTag - call reset after instantiation
> > >
> > >
> > > > Followup: I just checked Bugzilla at:
> > > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2108
> > > >
> > > > It says its been applied and the issue closed, but I don't see it
CVS.
> > > It
> > > > seems that the patch slipped through the cracks somehow.
> > > >
> > > > Could a committer look into this?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again,
> > > > Erik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 8:38 PM
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] FormTag - call reset after instantiation
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I'd like to lobby for this previously submitted patch to be
applied:
> > > > >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02556.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Erik
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
