IdeaJam(tm) : New Category for Lotus XPages Development

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:44:42 +0000

Author: Jason Hook
Comment: I'm not sure attaching your buggy to a single horse is a good idea. Nor would it be sensible to label a part of your body 'legacy' just because you've started using another bit more (married men will know what I'm talking about).

You started to make sense and then you got on your high horse....

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:45:43 +0000

Author: Thomas Duff
Comment: This wouldn't have been a half-bad idea had you not gone back to your insipid Domish statements and given the impression that everyone who is not building everything in XPages is a second-class citizen.

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:50:09 +0000

Author: Ben Poole
Comment: If we're talking about being able to differentiate between “classic” and XPages development, then that’s what the tags are for, right?

The rest of the idea text seems to just be editorial to me…

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:09:50 +0000

Author: Stuart McIntyre
Comment: Both 'classic' and 'Domish' are terms that need to be dispensed with right away...

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:59:10 +0000

Author: Gregg Eldred
Comment: Demoted, more for the editorializing than the original idea. Edit this entry, remove the last two sentences, and I'll change my vote.

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:29:25 +0000

Author: Rocky Oliver
Comment: We, as a community, hated it when IBMers referred to us as "tree huggers". We have enough pressures on us as collaborative technologies (and specifically, N/D) experts without us creating an "us and them" mentality amongst ourselves.

I think we can do better than this - and I would suspect you an too.

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:30:01 +0000

Author: Rocky Oliver
Comment: oops - "an" should be "can" in the last sentence.

Sorry for the confusion!

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:48:57 +0000

Author: Peter Presnell
Comment: @Thomas. If I was to take a standard definition of the term insipid... "lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge " then I would suggest the injections of terms such as Domish are in fact anything but "insipid". These do in fact stimulate discussion and debate about XPages development and what that means for the Notes programming that preceded it (the name we dare not use). It is a FACT that there are now two forms of Notes development, which is why I submitted this idea. It is OPINION as to which one is better and which, if any, has a future. I currently do 90% of my development using LotusScript and Notes Classic and do not feel that makes me inferior to those around me who are doing 100% XPages development.

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:14:17 +0000

Author: Thomas Duff
Comment: Interesting that you removed all the parts of your idea that people found offensive if they were positive for "stimulating discussion".

No one disputes that there are various methods to develop Notes apps. But when you insist on comparing people who don't use XPages to people who hold on to antiquated technology or people who need to see psychologists, then you don't do yourself or especially your employer any favors in gaining any respect in listening to your arguments.

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:17:26 +0000

Author: Ben Poole
Comment: Setting aside the emotive / language bits, I stand by my demotion because I think IBM can easily split out the info they need already, i.e. via tags applied to an idea. If an idea relates to xpages, tag it as such (as this one is), job done!

re: New Category for Lotus XPages Development

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 02:19:03 +0000

Author: Peter Presnell
Comment: @Thomas. This is an idea I have posted on ideajam that I think would be for the benefit for all. I have considered the comments and adjusted the text of the idea in line with that. I intend to leave the discussion at that.