+1 for 2.a) On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 14:03, Thomas Mortagne > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 13:57, Anca Paula Luca <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thomas Mortagne wrote: > >>> Hi devs, > >>> > >>> For 2.0 syntax we make XWikiDocument.display() enclose the result in > >>> {{html}}{{/html}} since it's supposed to generate html and that we > >>> should not have to use {{html}}{{/html}} in the syntax when we call > >>> $doc.display("somefield"). > >>> > >>> Now the issue is that public api Object and Document get() methods > >>> does not return the value but call display. But users (and us) used to > >>> access string value using $object.somefield instead of > >>> $object.getProperty("somefield").getValue() which is the correct form > >>> to access an object field value. > >> > >> I feel that > >> $object.fieldName is way more natural as > >> $object.getProperty("somefield").getValue() > >> than as > >> $object.display(). > >> > >> Otherwise put, why can't we change getters to return > >> $object.getProperty("somefield").getValue()? > > > > Because if we do that we break all code using $object.fieldName to > > display the field like most of the code to edit a form in inline mode > > (like the default content we generate in the class manager in XE). As > > i said in a previous mail when Thomas raised the issue, i would prefer > > that $object.fieldName does not call display but whatever the change > > you make to the API it will break it for users. > > The only thing we can do is keep the old model working as it always > worked and take care of all theses problems found for the new model. > > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Because of this wrong use of display() we have a big change in the api > >>> form user point so the question is what do we do ? > >>> > >>> I can see the following solution: > >>> 1) it's not a real change in the API, user should use the right way. > >>> It's ok like that. > >>> 2) we "optimize" XWikiDocument.display() by generating > >>> {{html}}{{/html}} only when it's necessary (if the result really is > >>> html) > >>> 2.a) if it contains "<" or ">" > >>> 2.b) when it's not a BaseStringProperty/NumberProperty/DateProperty > >>> since theses properties does not really need to produce HTML > >>> 3) we clean the display result in Object/Document.get by removing the > >>> {{html}}{{/html}} when the result does not really contains html (more > >>> or less the same way to find it than 2)) > >>> > >>> WDYT ? > >>> > >>> I'm +1 for 2.a) (I don't like b, i think the generic way is better) > >>> since i don't think we can "change" the API even if it's not a real > >>> change and this solution is not that much a hack, it makes display() > >>> return cleaner anyway. > >>> 3) as the advantage of fixing only the problematic API but it's really > >>> too crappy IMO > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> devs mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devs mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Thomas Mortagne > > > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki Skype ID : wikibc http://guillaumelerouge.com/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
