On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 18:59, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:55, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ? > > An idea to avoid duplicating all the searchDocument methods is to add > the hiddent document setup at org.xwiki.query.Query level. > > Basically we come back to clean searchDocument implementation in > XWikiHibernateStore and we put the hidden document filter support in > Query interface with a Query#setHiddenFiltered or something like that. > In any case using query manager is supposed to be the proper current > way of dealing with XWiki model so we don't have to support anything > in "old" storage APIs. > But to meet the objective of XWIKI-2843, which is to hide hidden document from all public API (those not requiring PR), this would also means to use org.xwiki.query.Query in all existing public API, or deprecate all those not using it ? > > > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> 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 > > > > > > -- > 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
