[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-577?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12681447#action_12681447
]
Fernando commented on TAP5-577:
-------------------------------
This just sounds like a HUGE change in behavior, without easily reverting to
old way of doing things.
1) we can't cache any generated content across users!!!!!
2) we now totally mess up how we generate urls ( if we do/have to do it in
javascript, or external services )
3) though the idea of putting locales in the url sounds cool, you can't just
force that on us!!
that is a huge change in site architecture, url planning, etc etc.
4) users might not care about urls, but we do, browsers do, caches do.....
So I like the suggestion that we implement the old simpler more industry
standard method be default, but let us easily change it to experiment and try
out new things..
> TAP5-422 changes break persistent locale backwards compatibility.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAP5-577
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-577
> Project: Tapestry 5
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: tapestry-core
> Affects Versions: 5.1.0.0, 5.1.0.1
> Reporter: Andy Blower
> Priority: Critical
>
> I think that the changes made in T5.1 for TAP5-422 break backwards
> compatibility with T5.0's locale persistence. In T5.0 it was a simple matter
> to override the default cookie persistence by creating a custom
> implementation of the PersistentLocale service and contributing it to be used
> instead of the standard internal T5 implementation.
> The TAP5-422 changes broke backwards compatibility because anyone who's
> created their own implementation of PersistentLocale, or just wants the 5.0
> cookie persistence behaviour, would have found that it's a lot more work and
> involves some heavy changes to Tapestry internals. Now with the recent
> changes for TAP5-418 (committed yesterday), the situation had been alleviated
> somewhat by allowing the the hard-wired URl locale persistence to be switched
> off using a new symbol.
> However, I still think that this breaks backwards compatibility in two ways:
> 1) By changing the default behaviour of locale persistence so that anyone
> relying on the locale persistence behaviour of 5.0 will have to make
> non-trivial changes when they upgrade to 5.1 to keep the same operation.
> 2) By requiring so much work for anyone wanting to keep the 5.0 cookie
> persistence behaviour or define their own custom locale persistence. (In 5.0
> it was easy to figure out and implement a custom locale persistence method)
> From my analysis of the changes made by TAP5-422 & TAP5-418, I think anyone
> wanting non-URL based locale persistence will need to do the following when
> upgrading from 5.0 to 5.1:
> 1) Set the ENCODE_LOCALE_INTO_PATH symbol to false.
> 2) Create an implementation of PersistentLocale and contribute it to the IOC.
> (copied from the standard 5.0 code if the old default cookie persistence is
> desired)
> 3) Create a custom filter written and created to do the same job as the 5.0
> LocalizationFilter and contribute it to the IOC RequestHandler. This filter
> will need to call the LocalizationSetter setLocaleFromLocaleName() method
> instead of the old setThreadLocale() method.
> My suggested resolution would be to re-instate the 5.0 cookie persistence
> (LocalizationFilter & PersistentLocaleImpl) and have the new
> ENCODE_LOCALE_INTO_PATH symbol default to false allowing 5.1 to work the same
> way as 5.0 out of the box. If the symbol is set to true, then the
> LocalizationFilter is disabled (not contributed to RequestHandler) and the
> PersistentLocale service will need to just store the locale (not set it in a
> cookie) for later use by LinkSourceImpl.
> LocalizationSetterImpl.setLocaleFromLocaleName(String localeName) would also
> need changing back to overriding the passed localeName if a persistent one
> had been set into the PersistentLocale service. There may by a much better
> solution than this as I've not spent much time on it, but I though I should
> try to be helpful as possible.
> (It should be noted that this is purely a product of my analysis of the 5.1
> code, I have not found the time to actually run T5.1 and test this out - I
> should be able to do this in about a week and a half, but I'm currently
> approaching a major milestone deadline. Hopefully someone else will find the
> time to prove or disprove my hypothesis.)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
