On 04/12/2010 04:58 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: > > > Thomas Mortagne wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 15:12, Caleb James DeLisle >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Currently, api.Document.getPreviousVersion() calls >>> doc.XWikiDocument.getPreviousVersion() which >>> calls doc.XWikiDocument.getDocumentArchive() which will return null if the >>> document archive is not >>> currently loaded. >>> >>> doc.XWikiDocument.getPreviousVersion() is inherently dangerous and should >>> be deprecated then removed. >>> doc.XWikiDocument.getDocumentArchive() sometimes returns null and should be >>> deprecated then made private. >>> >>> everywhere doc.XWikiDocument.getDocumentArchive() is used it should be >>> replaced with >>> doc.XWikiDocument.getDocumentArchive(XWikiContext) which calls >>> loadDocumentArchive first. >>> >>> >>> What I propose we do now (for 2.3) >>> #1 >>> Change api.Document.getPreviousVersion() to call >>> getDocumentArchive(getXWikiContext()) and move the logic >>> from doc.XWikiDocument.getPreviousVersion() into >>> api.Document.getPreviousVersion() >>> >>> #2 >>> change doc.XWikiDocument.copyDocument(DocumentReference >>> newDocumentReference, XWikiContext context) to call >>> getDocumentArchive(XWikiContext) instead of getDocumentArchive() >>> >>> #3 >>> Add warnings in javadoc for: >>> clone(XWikiDocument document) >>> cloneInternal(DocumentReference newDocumentReference, boolean keepsIdentity) >>> to say that they may not copy the archive since they use >>> getDocumentArchive() >>> >>> #4 >>> mark doc.XWikiDocument.getPreviousVersion() and >>> doc.XWikiDocument.getDocumentArchive() as depricated and >>> explain why in a comment. >> >> What would you have to use instead of XWikiDocument.getPreviousVersion() ? > > api.Document.getPreviousVersion()
-0 First, the API is not usually available inside the core, and it shouldn't since actually this is not a service API, but a public scripting API. Second, going to the API is an unneeded roundtrip, since the API should not contain any logic, it should just forward the call to the internal method, which is again XWikiDocument.getPreviousVersion. Third, the API might actually disappear in the future, once we move to the 2.0 model and add @Security and @Access annotations to it to mark public (scriptable) API methods and their associated access rights requirements. > My rationale is that we should use public api in internal code as often as > possible because public api is > supposed to always stay the same and internal code will thus become stronger. > Also it will mean that an > accidental api break will be more likely to cause test failures. > >> >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Caleb -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
