ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com>
Subject Re: widgetVerbose
Date Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:06:18 GMT
And there are others who don't like the all-or-nothing approach. Please, 
unless you have something new to add, can we stop talking in circles?

-Adrian

On 9/19/2011 5:02 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> yes I understand. but a simple turn off all comments lets you work with
> that. but if you want to see what is generating that, then turn them all on.
> Like Hans said, I really don't want to have to go through code to find
> where it is turned off or on.
>
> Adrian Crum sent the following on 9/19/2011 8:56 AM:
>> BJ,
>>
>> The original message of this thread points out why that approach does
>> not work. If comments are defaulted to on, then there MUST be a way to
>> turn them off for things like CSV output.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 9/19/2011 4:39 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>> +1
>>> KISS
>>> one place to turn off and on. common sense says you use for development
>>> then you turn it off so there are no comments in the ouput.
>>> So there is not need to have the comments turned off at component level.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hans Bakker sent the following on 9/19/2011 2:14 AM:
>>>> If i use the widget comments option i want it to be generally applied
>>>> and taken away depending on the properties setting. I do not want to
>>>> find out that somewhere it is not following the setting, then have to
>>>> dig in the code and find out that is, because somebody put an
>>>> undocumented override somewhere by default as happened the first time.
>>>> Bird and google checkout is fine.
>>>>
>>>> I think how it is implemented now is fine. I hope i commented now
>>>> enough?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 10:03 +0100, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques gave some examples of where an override is currently used and
>>>>> why it is needed. Could you give us another reason besides "i think an
>>>>> override is an overkill" - like a reason based on a design issue or a
>>>>> real-world problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/19/2011 7:55 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>> I as sorry i do not see the problem here.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as long as the properties setting in the trunk will show or hide
all
>>>>>> widget comments (so in the trunk NO override) then it is fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why? because i think an override is an overkill anyway....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 08:43 +0200, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, but I guess we will set widget.verbose in the properties
file
>>>>>>> to true (as we do for all defaults to be dev friendly). Will
that
>>>>>>> suit Hans? Else why do you Hans ask for now overriding in web.xml?
>>>>>>> For instance what for Birt by defaut? Why not keeping the example
>>>>>>> in example component commented out? Waht for testtools? Not sure
>>>>>>> why it's false in googlecheckout but I guess there is a reason..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other word I guess Hans expect widget.verbose in the properties
>>>>>>> file to be false...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum"<adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com>
>>>>>>>> Let's see if we can bring this to a happy ending.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the widget.verbose setting in the properties file is false,
>>>>>>>> then it overrides any other setting and all boundary comments
are
>>>>>>>> shut off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the widget.verbose setting in the properties file is true,
>>>>>>>> then it follows the previous pattern, where true is the default,
but
>>>>>>>> it can be overridden in web.xml and in the context Map.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will that work for everyone?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/15/2011 5:01 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I am going to feel bad if I don't add my 2 cents to this
thread :-)
>>>>>>>>> I agree with Jacques that the formatting of boundary
comments
>>>>>>>>> should be output specific (i.e no output for CSV etc...)
instead of
>>>>>>>>> always rendering as html comments.
>>>>>>>>> As regards the logic to determine if comments should
be enabled
>>>>>>>>> or not, I don't have a strong opinion because I have
always used
>>>>>>>>> this feature in a very rough way (enable all or disable
all);
>>>>>>>>> however I can understand the we may want to avoid that
(when
>>>>>>>>> widget.properties.enableBoundaryComments == false) the
comments
>>>>>>>>> are enabled by passing a URL parameter to the screen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Someone I work with suggested:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have to point out though that I kind of agree with
the way
>>>>>>>>>> David put it in that the "false" setting could have
a priority,
>>>>>>>>>> i.e. it's like in security permissions where "deny"
has
>>>>>>>>>> precedence over allow, so if you set it in widget.properties
to
>>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>> then you're sure comments will never be enabled anywhere...
>>>>>>>>>> security-wise it makes sense despite the comment
about qc...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe something like this? (compromise between the
two)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if (widget.properties.enableBoundaryComments == false
>>>>>>>>>>           || web.xml.enableBoundaryComments == false
>>>>>>>>>>           || context.enableBoundaryComments == false)
{
>>>>>>>>>>       return false;
>>>>>>>>>> } else { // This is the solution Scott wrote, but
use
>>>>>>>>>> overriding settings only for null and true values
>>>>>>>>>>       if (context.enableBoundaryComments != null)
return
>>>>>>>>>> context.enableBoundaryComments;
>>>>>>>>>>       if (web.xml.enableBoundaryComments != null)
return
>>>>>>>>>> web.xml.enableBoundaryComments;
>>>>>>>>>>       if (widget.properties.enableBoundaryComments
!= null)
>>>>>>>>>> return widget.properties.enableBoundaryComments;
>>>>>>>>>>       return false;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could probably rewrite that to be less redundant
but you get
>>>>>>>>>> the idea...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> jleroux: I quickly reformated my own way ;o), It
seems a good
>>>>>>>>>> idea to me, what do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also my colleague also wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Only thing I have to add is that I didn't see anyone
address
>>>>>>>>>> the issue that HTML comments are outputted for CSV
(because
>>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>>> no<csv>     element and you have to use<html>)
element. No
>>>>>>>>>> matter what widget.verbose is set to, there should
never be HTmL
>>>>>>>>>> comments outputted for csv. so this only addresses
half the
>>>>>>>>>> bugs...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have no patches so far...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dimitri Unruh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dimitri Unruh
>>>>>>>>>>> Consultant AEW
>>>>>>>>>>> Lynx-Consulting GmbH
>>>>>>>>>>> Johanniskirchplatz 6
>>>>>>>>>>> 33615 Bielefeld
>>>>>>>>>>> Deutschland
>>>>>>>>>>> Fon: +49 521 5247-0
>>>>>>>>>>> Fax: +49 521 5247-250
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobil: +49 160 90 57 55 13
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Company and Management Headquarters:
>>>>>>>>>>> Lynx-Consulting GmbH, Johanniskirchplatz 6, 33615
Bielefeld,
>>>>>>>>>>> Deutschland
>>>>>>>>>>> Fon: +49 521 5247-0, Fax: +49 521 5247-250, www.lynx.de
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Court Registration: Amtsgericht Bielefeld HRB
35946
>>>>>>>>>>> Chief Executive Officers: Karsten Noss, Dirk
Osterkamp
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lynx.de/haftungsausschluss
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wir laden Sie herzlich ein:
>>>>>>>>>>> DSAG-Jahreskongress
>>>>>>>>>>> Datum: 11. - 13. Oktover 2011, Congress Center
Leipzig, Halle
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 Stand B01
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Besuchen Sie uns an unserem Stand und freuen
Sie sich auf
>>>>>>>>>>> einen intensiven Informations- und Erfahrungsaustausch
rund um
>>>>>>>>>>> das
>>>>>>>>>>> Thema Mobility!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 13.09.2011 um 14:35 schrieb "Bilgin
>>>>>>>>>>> Ibryam"<bibryam@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Adrian Crum
>>>>>>>>>>>> <adrian.crum@sandglass-software.com>
    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Scott - those are my feelings
exactly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the way the design worked previously,
and changing it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because a user
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might accidentally leave the comments
enabled in production
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems silly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a user's QC problem, not a widget
comment design
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> + 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bilgin

Mime
View raw message