On Jan 9, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Pascal Voitot wrote:
> does it mean all scripts using the older functions will need to be updated?
There's only one gotcha right now with what I have on my machine (not
committed) and I'm still hesitating. Internally I've modified the field
containing the objects from
private Map<String, Vector<BaseObject>> objects
to
private Map<DocumentReference, List<BaseObject>> objects
This means that the old (deprecated APIs) have to wrap the internal map. For
example when XWikiDocument.getxWikiObjects() is called it returns a new Map,
copying the internal map to a map of type Map<String, Vector<BaseObject>>. The
problem is that if you have code like the following it'll now fail:
getxWikiObjects().put(something)
Then calling getxWikiObjects() again will not contain the "something" object.
IMO it's a bad usage of the API. Instead if you wish to add something you
should call addObject (now addXObject) for example. However it was allowed and
will break old code which would need to be modified to work.
WDYT? I don't see any solution to preserve the old behavior and at the same
time move to Map<DocumentReference, List<BaseObject>> objects
Thanks
-Vincent
> Pascal
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> As I mentioned already I'm modifying all APIs in XWikiDocument to use
>> References (I'm adding new APIs and deprecating old ones).
>>
>> While doing this I'm also fixing names for new APIs. So far I'm modifying 3
>> things:
>> - replace Vector by List
>> - replace Object by XObject in API. For example: getxWikiObjects() -->
>> getXObjects(), getObjects(String classname) -->
>> getXObjects(DocumentReference classnameReference)
>> - replace Class by XClass in API. For example: getxWikiClasses -->
>> getXClasses()
>>
>> Note1: I wanted to use getObject and getClass but getClass is reserved
>> already.
>> Note2: in the new model we won't have this problem since we'll
>> intelligently use another name for object definitions, something like
>> ObjectDefinition :). We could also change Object but it's less problematic
>> and it's probably ok to keep it.
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
