On Oct 1, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm changing my vote to -0 for BlockList FTM since I've just realized there > might a problem. > > BlockList means that it's a list of block. But this is not what it is… > > It's a Block like any other block. The important part is not that it's a list > of blocks, all our blocks are list of blocks. > > The important part is that it can be used to hold one or several blocks. More precisely, compared to the other existing block this is a type of block that add no additional metadata. It's a no op block basically. The fact that it's a list of Block is a feature of all blocks so this one doesn't need to mention that explicitly I think. ATM I prefer CompositeBlock than BlockList which I find a bit misleading. NoOpBlock would be ok too I guess but I don't like it too much. I'm very close to -1 for BlockList. Since it's a block its name must end by Block and the prefix should qualify the type of block it is. Thanks -Vincent PS: NodeList doesn't implement Node. > > -Vincent > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 28, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> In many APIs we sometime want to manipulate several Block but we don't >>> want to put them in a meaningful Block like XDOM which is supposed to >>> mean a full document. Right now the only way to do it is to have both >>> an API with Block and another with Collection<Block> but it's a bit >>> more annoying for return type where you are forced to return a >>> List<Block> even if you are in a case where you actually have only one >>> Block to return like in macros for example. >>> >>> We talked a long time ago with Vincent about a BlockCollection which >>> would not have any meaning (i.e. no corresponding event in the stream >>> rendering API) and would just be here to be able to pass several >>> blocks as a Block. >>> >>> Since UI extension is going to use it a lot I propose to introduce it now. >>> >>> WDYT ? >>> >>> Any better idea for the name ? >>> >>> Here is my +1. >> >> I'm +1 with the idea. >> >> I'm ok with BlockList (hoping that people will not confuse BlockList with >> ListBlock ;)). >> >> Another possibility is to use a name that reflects what it is, i.e. a >> composite pattern (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_pattern) and >> call it: CompositeBlock >> >> I'm also ok for that since we've used that naming in several other places. >> >> So to summarize: >> >> +0 BlockCollection >> +1 ListBlock >> +1 CompositeBlock >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
