myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Vieujot <svieu...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Vote for new displayValueOnly attribute
Date Sun, 22 May 2005 02:50:09 GMT
Thanks for your feedback.

Sylvain.

On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 16:41 -0700, Jon Travis wrote:

> FWIW, this feature is very useful for us.
> 
> -- Jon
> 
> 
> On May 11, 2005, at 8:14 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> 
> > Ok, I have started off...
> >
> > - we can always get rid of the code again if it doesn't work out.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 5/11/05, Sylvain Vieujot <svieujot@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>  Thank you Sean.
> >>
> >>  I have no problem to improve/change this later on.
> >>  As far as I'm concerned, backward compatibility isn't very  
> >> important yet
> >> because our JSF applications are still relatively new and small.
> >>
> >>  Sylvain.
> >>
> >>
> >>  On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 09:50 -0400, Sean Schofield wrote:
> >>  I agree with Kalle's sentiments that this is the nature of open  
> >> source
> >> software. Actually not just open source software, but any
> >> collaborative effort. Building a consensus takes time but in the end,
> >> the thorough discussion benefits everyone. While the feature is
> >> relatively simple and our spare time is precious, this is something
> >> that affects all of us. Not every new feature or component will fall
> >> into this category. Tree2 took a lot longer with all of the debate,
> >> but in the end it was better because I got some good ideas from
> >> people.
> >>
> >> In this case I think a vote is appropriate because there are some
> >> strong reservations by some individuals and so Sylvain should have an
> >> unambiguous answer as to how to proceed. We should also be willing to
> >> change code after the fact if it results in an improvement.
> >>
> >> So I say lets go ahead with Sylvain's approach now and lets take a
> >> look at what he comes up with. If we come up with a better solution
> >> or an improvement to the existing solution lets not limit ourselves
> >> with concerns of backwards compatability.
> >>
> >> So I will vote +1 for Sylvain's solution and reserve the right to
> >> reopen the discussion later if we feel there are improvements to be
> >> made.
> >>
> >> sean
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/11/05, Sylvain Vieujot <svieujot@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sean & Kalle,
> >>>
> >>> I agree that this discussion helped to clarify some things, but  
> >>> I'm a
> >>>
> >> quite
> >>
> >>> worried by the time and efforts it takes to agree on such a small  
> >>> feature.
> >>> I don't underestimate the necessity of having a well thought API,  
> >>> but as
> >>> all of you, my time is spare, and I disagree that there is no  
> >>> harm in a
> >>> prolonged discussion.
> >>> If it's just too much effort to decide such issues, I should  
> >>> better do a
> >>> hack on my own, and forget about including it in Myfaces.
> >>>
> >>> Please don't take this as an offense, it's just a general worry  
> >>> that this
> >>> would afraid others like me of contributing anything else than  
> >>> bug fixes.
> >>> I also dislike this voting process, but it is an attempt to keep  
> >>> this in a
> >>> reasonable time frame, so please try to make your mind, but don't  
> >>> ask for
> >>> another week of emails & extensive explanations.
> >>>
> >>> As for the summary of the options, I agree with the one Martin  
> >>> just did
> >>> (thanks for your help by the way).
> >>>
> >>> Sylvain.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 15:26 -0400, Sean Schofield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> While discussing this has taken a long time, I don't see any  
> >>>> wrong in
> >>>> it. It's still cheap and easy compared to implementing different
> >>>> components, then comparing their implementations, fixing  
> >>>> possible bugs
> >>>> etc.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Kalle that there is no harm in a prolonged  
> >>> discussion on
> >>> this. If memory serves me, we have only been discussing this for a
> >>> week or so. I think we should consider postponing the vote and  
> >>> taking
> >>> a little more time with this.
> >>>
> >>> My reasoning is that this solves a problem that many of us  
> >>> (including
> >>> myself) need to have solved. Lets pick an approach that we can all
> >>> live with.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, we owe it to Sylvain to not drag this out. Lets
> >>> try to resolve this quickly but also give it the consideration it
> >>> deserves. Also, the answer to this problem involves several "design
> >>> principles" that we should probably agree upon. For instance,  
> >>> concern
> >>> over bloated attributes, mutating components, etc.
> >>>
> >>> I need some time to re-read this very extensive thread. Maybe  
> >>> Sylvain
> >>> or Kalle can summarize the options for us (Option #1, #2, etc.)
> >>> People can add new options (give them a new number) and we can  
> >>> have a
> >>> quick discussion and reference these options by # and discuss  
> >>> pros and
> >>> cons.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Kalle
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> sean
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message