Unset - Configuration Editor
John Sanda
jsanda at redhat.com
Tue Sep 11 16:47:08 UTC 2012
I agree and understand that we need a way to reset a value back to its default. I think we should explore whether or not there is a better way, especially if there is a general consensus that the unset checkbox is confusing.
On Sep 11, 2012, at 12:18 PM, John Mazzitelli <mazz at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I have a question. Do we need the unset column at all?
>
> The unset checkbox has always been a problem since it can be confusing what it means.
>
> However, we need a way to support being able to unset a value so it falls back to its default value (which most times is not an empty value). This unset checkbox was the way we implemented that requirement.
>
> For example, how do you distinguish a property value that is set, but is an empty string versus a value that is not set and whose value therefore becomes a non-empty default value (an internal default value that the code would use if the property is not set)?
Not sure I understand. The editor renders a text field with a non-empty default value. I edit the field, changing it to an empty string. So is the problem knowing/remembering that I have actually edited that text field?
>
> This is the problem the unset checkbox attempted to solve.
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
More information about the rhq-devel
mailing list