+1 With filesystem attachments I really had to depend on oldcore so my solution was to split the code and provide as many APIs as possible in modules which didn't depend on oldcore so that the dependent code remained small.
Caleb On 03/26/2012 04:39 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > Hi devs, > > I see that we keep adding stuff regularly to oldcore and the reason is "my > code depends on oldcore so I cannot depend on oldcore in new modules". > > First, this is not completely true. We have several modules that already > depend on oldcore. > > Also we cannot wait indefinitely that the new model magically appears (that > won't happen… :)). > > I think it's fine to depend on oldcore when a new module requires to use the > model and when the bridge (DAB) is not enough. However we need to be careful > about one thing: that oldcore itself doesn't use that new module. So > sometimes it will mean extracting stuff from oldcore into a separate module > so that it can use the other new module ;) > > Personally I now think we need to continue splitting oldcore and it's more > important that we create new modules for specific domains, even if they use > old code and even if they use the com.xpn namespace when moving oldcode) than > keep everything as it is and make oldcore grow fatter… > > Of course sometimes it may just be too complex but at least we should > consider it and when possible create new modules depending on oldcore. > > WDYT? > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
