On Jan 13, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> 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.
I meant VETO, not VOTE...
> We'll need to review title handling in the future in any case. I'm sending
> another mail on that.
Sent.
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
