Re: Re: WebWork and XWork

If you're unable to balance a social life and time spent analysing back 
architectures and designs, pick the one you think is more important and 
stick to it. Much better to be good at one thing than suck at two 
things.

On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 05:10 AM, Mathias Bogaert wrote:

>> Especially during this phase of WW2 development where
>> bad architectural decisions will likely become something everyone will
> have
>> to live with for a long time should they make it into the release 
>> version.
>
> I am a mere mortal that implemented a single, simple feature, 
> contributing
> to an open source project. If I would 'question' bad architectural 
> decisions
> everytime I encounter them, I would have no social life whatsoever.
>
> Mathias
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Miller" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 5:15 PM
> Subject: [Opensymphony-developers] Re: WebWork and XWork
>
>
>> Ahhhh.... I've just done some further digging and I now see why the 
>> code
> is
>> the way it is (and why it should all still be removed :-).
>>
>> The file webwork/src/webapp/tags.vm holds the key... Seems that at 
>> some
>> point in the past there was a (nasty) solution to allow an arbitrary 
>> set
> of
>> parameters to be passed to a UI widget. All those icky methods were 
>> there
> to
>> allow the tag properties to be set one after the other, all chained
> together
>> (hence the "return this;"). But the newer (and far far cleaner) 
>> approach
> is
>> to use the #tag() macro. The tags.vm file says the chaining approach 
>> is
>> deprecated, however since the WW code has never been released even as 
>> beta
>> shouldn't that code have been removed completely back when #tag() was
>> implemented?
>>
>> Mathias sorry for coming down so hard on you in my last post, in 
>> hindsight
>> it was a little unfair given the circumstances. However I'd still hope
> that
>> seeing code like that would trigger off a few alarm bells and cause a
>> developer to step back to question why it was like that rather than
> blindly
>> follow the example. Especially during this phase of WW2 development 
>> where
>> bad architectural decisions will likely become something everyone will
> have
>> to live with for a long time should they make it into the release 
>> version.
>>
>> OK, enough ranting from me, I'm sure you'll all have ample 
>> opportunity to
>> fire rants back my way should I ever find the time to actually 
>> contribute
>> something myself!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
>> Welcome to geek heaven.
>> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensymphony-developers mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developers
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Opensymphony-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developers
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf