On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:49, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 15:22, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Just seen that we have a bunch of display related method based on > >> Query plugin for which we don't have any alternative to propose right > >> now. > >> > >> Basically it's supposed to allow to easily display a search form for > >> any field the same way you can display a edit form. > >> > >> Note that from what I understood from a conversation we had with > >> Denis it's not working very well. > >> > > > > I should confirm that, I would have said that it is not working at all if > > you want to do anything more than very basic search with simple text > field. > > There is issue with list, multi-select, boolean, etc... > > We have used it after some patches, part of them were commited to master, > > but not all. > > So I doubt there is any user of these functions that also intend to > migrate > > to the latest version. > > > > > >> > >> So what do we do after all ? > >> > >> 1) nothing > >> 2) still deprecate and move to legacy, is app within minutes supposed > >> to provide an alternative ? > >> 3) move to retired > >> > >> WDYT ? > >> > >> I'm now -1 for 3) since it's impossible to move method to retired. > >> > > > > From what I know of it, and +1 for 2) and even +1 for 3) if it is less > work. > > We use it on 2.4 currently, but if I have to upgrade any site using it to > > 3.x, I will probably rewrite the search part anyway. > > I know we do not have an alternative, but it is a function that is not > > really used anyway due to its caveat. So this is not an issue to retire > it > > now. Of course, we should think about providing similar search feature in > > the future. > > I'm not really against the idea of retire it but I have no idea how to > retire methods so it's either move them to legacy with aspects or > delete them (which would be a lot easier than putting that in aspect > since right now I have no idea how to put interface method in an > aspect, need to look at AspectJ doc). > This what 3) means to me, move the plugin to retire, and delete the method. I am almost sure that building the aspect will be useless, so if this is long and difficult leave it. (I have never converted existing code in aspect, so I do not know well the hard work it could be) >From what you say, +1 for 3). Denis > > > > > Denis > > > > > >> > >> I would says lets still deprecate and move it to legacy even if we > >> don't provide right now an exact alternative, it's not like it was > >> making impossible to search something since we don't use this at all > >> in XE/XEM since a very long time AFAIK. > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Sep 30, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Hi dev, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The new query manager component work pretty well and starts to be > used > >> >>>> more and more so I think we should remove > com.xpn.xwiki.plugin.query. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> So here is the proposals: > >> >>>> (1) move it to legacy > >> >>>> (2) move it to retired is it's own maven project so that it's easy > to > >> >>>> build and produce a jar if someone wants to use it > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Note planning to do it in 3.2, that's for 3.3M1. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> WDYT ? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> +1 for (2): it's the last thing that trigger dependency on > jackrabbit > >> >>>> so even if we get rid of jackrabbit in oldcore by moving it to > >> >>>> legacy-oldcore it would still be in XE > >> >>> > >> >>> I'd say (1) then (2) since it could be used by some external code. > >> >> > >> >> It's the same for any other things we retired. The question is more > do > >> >> we still want to maintain it (legacy) or not (retired), in both case > >> >> anyone can still use it if he really wants either by using the 3.2 > >> >> version or building the retired one. > >> > > >> > Denis said he was still using it so I'd say yes to put it in legacy > for > >> now. > >> > Denis, how long should it stay there in your opinion? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > -Vincent > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
