On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:39, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:35, Thomas Mortagne > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:29, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 16:17, Thomas Mortagne < > [email protected]>wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 15:57, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > Hi Devs, > >>> > > >>> > Anyone of you will surely agree that the hidden document feature > >>> implemented > >>> > in the store is very bad. > >>> > >>> The way this "feature" is implemented should never have been accepted, > >>> it just broke an API for something that is not really related to > >>> storage... > >>> > >>> See http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3925 and its dependencies. > >>> > >>> > IMO, it has never been fully implemented, probably in the hope of a > >>> better > >>> > way to go, and it is so for too long. I think it is the time to take > some > >>> > decision about it, or I do not see the direction and I do not > understand > >>> > where we want to go ? > >>> > > >>> > I see 3 possibilities: > >>> > 1) we remove it and found other way to solve the problem it solves, > >>> which > >>> > are currently limited to the Blog, ColorThemes and Panels > applications in > >>> a > >>> > standard XE. > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >> > >> Do you means that you are +1 for reverting the code to what it was > before > >> that feature, and putting some code in each application using it to > avoid > >> the effet of the revert ? > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > 2) we keep it as it is, since it could be hard to implement higher > in > >>> the > >>> > current implementation, but then we need to fix the places where it > cause > >>> > issues. > >>> > >>> -1, I can see it as a long term solution. It's something to say we > >>> will fix it latter it's something else to validate it. Adding a > >>> boolean to searchDocument as indicated in > >>> http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3925 would already be a lot > >>> better than the current situation. > >>> > >>> > 3) we implement the feature using another method ? > >>> > >>> I don't fully understand what is the difference between 1) and 3). > >>> > >> > >> The difference is that in 3), you propose an alternative solution to the > >> same issue, which is hiding document from public interface. > > > > "putting some code in each application using it to avoid the effet of > > the revertv" is pretty much the same thing as "propose an alternative > > solution to the same issue": in both case searchDocument go back to > > what is used to be and you need to filter another way > > Anyway whatever the real difference between 1) and 3) I think we need > a filtering system and the way it's done now is bad. > So, you (Thomas and Jerome) would be in favor of reverting to the old behavior, improving the feature by using a boolean for example, and setting that boolean only when we want the filter applied (for example, in calls from the public API). Since I completely agree that this should have been done that way in the first place, I would like to propose that in vote. is there any comments from others before I do ? > > > > >> Maybe, 3) is more like your proposal for 2), while 2) means using search > in > >> place of searchDocument to bypass the filter. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > If we choose 1), early in 3.x release is the probably best moment for > it, > >>> > since it is a breakage in compatibility, I am -0 on this however. > >>> > > >>> > If we choose 2), we need to make it work properly by fixing places > where > >>> we > >>> > need to include all document, including hidden one. I have some old > patch > >>> to > >>> > the application-manager to export hidden document (ie: currently the > blog > >>> > application does not export properly), to the skinx plugin that does > not > >>> > apply 'always' skin extensions contained in hidden document, and > there is > >>> > probably other places. > >>> > > >>> > If we choose 3) now, what do you proposed to better implement it. I > have > >>> > read some comments that it was a UI level stuff implemented at the > store > >>> > level, but I do not see how it could be done better in the current > >>> > implementation. > >>> > > >>> > Moreover, if we keep the feature, I think that it should be exposed > >>> somehow > >>> > to the admins, allowing the creation of hidden document, but also > listing > >>> > them, deleting them properly, etc... Concerning the document provided > >>> with > >>> > XE, I also wonder what could be the rules for hiding them or not ? > Why > >>> not > >>> > also hidding stock document in the XWiki space, just keeping users > and > >>> some > >>> > top level documents ? > >>> > > >>> > WDYT ? > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Denis Gervalle > >>> > SOFTEC sa - CEO > >>> > eGuilde sarl - CTO > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > devs mailing list > >>> > [email protected] > >>> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Thomas Mortagne > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> devs mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Denis Gervalle > >> SOFTEC sa - CEO > >> eGuilde sarl - CTO > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
