> I think these two are the same question. I think there needs to be *one* > place that defines what a legal TopicName is. I think it should be the > TopicName class. After all, if TopicName won't take it, then no one else > should. >
The one thing that we'll need to watch out for is the case where we have to preserve a topic name that is otherwise invalid. This will bite us in the case of allowing users to edit "bad" 1.8 topics and also if we get fancy with error handling where we preserve the topic name for the user to allow them to fix it more interactively. I guess that we'll need to make the validation a "passive" occurrence where there is a IsValid property or something and still allow trash names to get set. This isn't as clean, but I think that back-compat will be easier this way. > Obviously, the question "what constitutes a legal TopicName?" is different > from the question of "what does the Formatter turn into a hyperlink?" So > from that standpoint I think two pieces of code are warranted. Probably the > Formatter shouldn't create a link to a topic with an illegal name, so one > piece of code will likely use the other. > So, the first question remains... What is a legal Topic Name? Right now TopicName doesn't restrict it... the DiskStore hurls on certain names... the Formatter fails to recognize others... And to boot we have no idea what happens to work because people have been cruising along in 1.8 without any of these concepts. The Formatter recognizes a nasty regex expression that I tried to dissect once but gave up on. I'd say that a good start would be to use the Formatter's regex and add exclusions of things that we know make the DiskStore unhappy. I'd also guess that ".." should be added as illegal. I don't know about single "." It causes problems now because everything is coded to assume that everything to the left of the first "." is a namespace and the rest is the topic. I don't know how we'd allow "." in topics without ensuring which they meant. > > 3) What do we want the behavior to be when the user tries to create an > > topic with an invalid name. <-It currently takes the user to the edit > > page with the topic text forced to "this is a bad name" and no save > > button displayed. > > That seems reasonable. It might be nicer to put it in a tooltip, though, > just to save someone the clickthrough. > I just saw how that the security stuff does this. I'll look into replicating it. > So, the question of what a "missing" namespace is has one subtlety: there's > no way to tell the difference between a namespace that doesn't exist and one > you have no read access to. That's by design. But I think in general the > answer to your question is "yes, there is a difference". I'm not sure I can > quantify it, but it seems to me that trying to create a topic with a valid > name in a nonexistent namespace is somehow different from trying to create a > topic with an invalid name in an existing namespace. But maybe the fact that > I can't tell you what the difference is indicates that there really isn't > one. > > I believe that the user should not know that there is a difference, but that the code should. I'm not sure that this is possible given the model and architecture, but that's what I'd try for, given a chance. Anyway, I think that the first thing to nail down is what is a legal topic name moving forward. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Flexwiki-users mailing list Flexwiki-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flexwiki-users
