On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>
>
> On 01/11/2011 11:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/10/2011 12:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>
>>>> In lots of places we need to display the title without any markup
>>>> rendering. Examples:
>>>> - breadcrumb
>>>> - activity stream
>>>> - search results
>>>> etc
>>>>
>>>> This is such a common use case I'm proposing to add a new API for it in
>>>> Document: getPlainTitle()
>>>> It's a one liner that will do:
>>>>
>>>> getRenderedTitle("plain/1.0")
>>>
>>> You mean adding an alias to
>>> c.x.x.api.Document#getRenderedTitle("plain/1.0")?
>>
>> yes because we don't want user of the API (from velocity) hardcoding strings
>> as much as possible. They don't need to know that internally there's a plain
>> text renderer called "plain/1.0".
>>
>>> If so, I am -0 on that because as I understand, c.x.x.api.Document is on
>>> the road to being retired
>>
>>> with the old core and any new APIs there should have very compelling
>>> rationales.
>>
>> What part is not compelling?
>
> IMO The cost of increasing the amount of deprecated API outweighs the cost of
> hardcoding strings in
> script. I should have said that I think there must be some use case with a
> compelling rationale
> which is simply impossible without the addition to the API. As it is now, we
> have velocity code with
> hardcoded strings and thus it must be refactored. With this change we will
> have velocity code which
> depends on deprecated API (Correct me if c.x.x.api.Document is not
> deprecated) and thus must be
> refactored.
Document is not deprecated as of now. It'll be deprecated one day when we have
the new model.
> I will let my -0 stand because it's not something I like the sound of but I
> accept that there are
> many valid ways of doing things and I may well be missing an important piece
> if information.
ok thanks. Since others were ok and your -0 is not a vote I have committed it.
We'll need to review title handling in the future in any case. I'm sending
another mail on that.
Thanks
-Vincent
> Caleb
>
>
>>
>>> At least (IMO) they
>>> should provide functionality which was previously unavailable without
>>> programming permission.
>>
>> That's why I haven't proposed to put this in XWiiDocument but only in
>> Document. Document is scripting API and it makes a lot of sense for
>> scripting, especially since we don't have a way of sharing a final static
>> String in Velocity.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>> Caleb
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's my +1
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
