On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thomas,
>
> Le 19 janv. 2012 à 12:06, Thomas Mortagne a écrit :
>>> A deprecation mechanism should be able to support the developer into
>>> actualizing to the right keys, chosen from a finite set of suggestions (the
>>> new keys).
>>
>> Examples would be nice ;)
>
> Think of redoing a part of "my blabla profile" where "my contributions" are
> displayed so that it can speak to the third person when the user is not the
> same: you'd start with a copy of the profile velocity views (pages, vm
> files), then modify them progressively.
>
> The keys, maybe they were prefixed with "myblabla" would be refactored to be
> either with "ownblaba" and "othersblabla".
> Ideally, this should be done in one shot, so no real need of deprecation, but
> I do not think this can be ensured.
>
>> Do you mean that the old key is refactored in severals ? In this cases
>> as a key cannot contains a white space in Properties specs we could
>> have:
>>
>> #@deprecated new.key.subname1 new.key.subname2
>> old.key.name=Default translation
>
> Fits me perfectly!
>
>>> The encoding is bound to the target usages and vice versa...
>> Not sure I understand what you mean.
>
> that's philosophical: I meant we need to envision the usages to make sure the
> knowledge representation is good engouh.
>
>>> The restricted view of a key-renaming appears to me as something that could
>>> be easily automated leading to an automatic refactoring of the sources.
>>> Other deprecation mechanisms cannot be so: the deprecation without
>>> replacement can only lead to a developer warning, the deprecation with
>>> multiple alternatives can only lead to a warning with suggestion...
>>
>> Sure it's hard to automate translation copy to the new key when there
>> is 0 or more that one new keys. Do you mean that we need a syntax
>> advanced enough to explain to the l10n wiki or any other tool how to
>> cut the key in peaces to put it in the right keys ?
>
> I did mean this indeed.
>
>>> I'm just trying to see the big picture of the future before settling on the
>>> knowledge representation...
>>
>> Sure, that's why this proposal is for: make sure we go in the right
>> direction. But does not mean we have to do everything at once, just
>> that we need to make sure we don't block the future ;)
>
> We're on the same wavelength.
>
> I think at this point, considering all the cases we've considered, I can say:
>
> +1.
Ok thanks.
I will go for
#@deprecated new.key.subname1 new.key.subname2
old.key.name=Default translation
as first implementation.
I will also make sure of the following:
* the type of syntax is indicated by a {syntaxid} at the beginning,
default being a list of new keys
* skip unknown syntax type without complaining. So it allows a large
choice of syntaxes to extend the current syntax without breaking
anything.
For example:
#@deprecated {regexp} match="(.*) and (.*)" new.key.subname1=1
new.key.subname2=2
old.key.name=Default translation
WDYT ?
>
> I would lover, however, to see what tools are used that use the deprecation.
As I said the first one will be l10n wiki: the goal is to make sure we
don't loose translation assigned to the old key when renaming it. When
l10n import the default language and see a new deprecated key it's
going to copy the translations assigned t the old key on the new key
so that when you export again translation from l10n wiki all the
translations are now both on the old and new key.
On XWiki itself we can imagine printing warning indicating which key
to use instead when some code try to get deprecated key translation
and even get the translation from the new key instead.
>
> paul
> _______________________________________________
> 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
