This is becoming increasingly absurd, but, once again, the number of users who cared about this dropped from one to zero when you decided to use something else. Also, upon examining your actual solution, it turned out to be more complicated than would be justified by the perceived benefits.
-
-
Hence why it would have been useful to get all this feedback, you know, months ago. The solution was not that complex to understand--add annotations to the SmartGWT code, instead of using javadoc. If deemed "complicated", I'm not sure why the conclusion was not reached earlier if that was the case.Originally posted by IsomorphicComment
-
Because when we saw your implementation it was complicated. It could not have been determined before seeing the details of your implementation.
This has been a spectacular attempt to find bad intent where there isn't any, hopefully it's done now?Comment
-
The only intent I aimed to show was that, per the other user's post, you only answer the easy questions unless pressed. His post was the main reason I got feedback at all.Originally posted by IsomorphicComment
-
It is manifestly obvious, from just looking at a random sampling of threads, that this assertion is not the case.Comment
-
Then please explain why, after initial discussion of a possible solution, you did not reply with feedback until now, initiated by a different discussion in this thread?Originally posted by IsomorphicComment
-
Because you said you were no longer using our product, and no one else cared. The feedback was totally unrelated to you, and we're surprised to see you posting here at all any more.Comment
-
I mentioned I wasn't using the product *two months* after asking for feedback. Perhaps you did not notice the dates.Originally posted by IsomorphicComment
-
No, you simultaneously followed up asking for feedback and announced that you were no longer using the product. In the meantime, your submission had languished because no one else was requesting it, and you hadn't followed up, so we were working on things that affected more than one user.Comment
-
No I didn't. The follow up said I did not get feedback. The initial post assumed feedback was required, since your original statement was:Originally posted by Isomorphic
"If you were to propose a concrete implementation..."
You never replied to the proposal.Comment
-
We're not sure what your confusion is now, but just from a facts-of-life perspective, a project can be open source and yet submissions are rejected - because they are too complicated, or because there are just better things to work on and people's time is scarce. Happens all the time.
If you're submitting something others have asked for you have a great shot at getting feedback.
If you're supplying a complicated fix for something that's closer to a personal pet peeve, feedback may be delayed for a long time.Comment
-
I have no confusion (other than your use of "we", which makes me imagine I am either talking to someone with multiple personality disorder, or a pair of individuals Extreme Forum Posting). I don't expect submissions to be automatically approved, nor even quickly. If you go back and read the thread, it's quite simple. You stated:
"If you were to propose a concrete implementation of this that would give warnings similar to deprecation but not produce a compilation error, it would be easy for us to pervasively apply."
I proposed one. You never replied. I figured something that would be "easy" to "pervasively apply" would have taken less than two months to review. Even a note that said, "Hey, we're busy with more important stuff. Sorry." would have sufficed. Communication was fairly quickly up until the submission. The annotation processor is ~100 lines of code (~30 being javadoc and imports) and is based on some of the most basic annotation processing examples from Sun's website. I just had a hard time believing it was so complicated as to have taken so long to review.Last edited by twelve17; 17 Jan 2012, 12:33.Comment
-
It didn't take two months to review, we spent two months on more important tasks, and when you followed up and actually provided the code (for the first time), you also declared you weren't using the product, dropping the priority to zilch.Comment
-
I clearly stated that I had the code completed on 6th May 2011. I did not provide it only because this forum does not allow it, so I stated:
"I could not attach the actual processor jar file here, but can provide it, along with the source and example test maven projects and sources."
If you had even attempted to look into it, you would've had to ask me for the sources. So this tells me you didn't bother at all, nor would you have known that it was "too complicated" at the time, because the implementation was not available to you. Yet, now, in short time, you managed to determine that the solution is not feasible, despite it still being something nobody cares about anymore. Sorry, I'm not buying it.Comment
-
We figured you would find a way to get us the code (and you did). And yes, it didn't take long to determine, having seen the code, that it was too complicated to apply on behalf of the zero users who want it.
You can continue to grasp at straws if you like, but there was no bad intent here, as we've made clear.Comment
Comment