Hi, quick update: been the last two days looking into this. It's been straightforward so far, but I'm looking if we could narrow to Map<String, String>, which is what wiki forms are internally using. That would mean tightening a little bit more the WikiPlugin API, so I'm taking a closer look at this to ensure this wouldn't break other plugins.
br, juan pablo On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Ichiro Furusato <ichiro.furus...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Juan Pablo, > > I wasn't aware of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-719, > but I can understand the sentiment. There's always a question of > legacy compatibility, and had I been present and a voter on the project > I would have been on the more radical side rather than siding the > "conservatives", i.e., I believe it's probably time for the default to > cause older plugins to fail rather than grandfather them in. This I > suppose is the Apple Computer approach rather than the IBM approach. > > I'm just of a mind that the more patchwork the code the harder it is to > maintain, and having followed the JSPWiki project from very early days > I feel it's already overly complex -- waaaay too many options, even for > someone like me who likes options. I don't think it's a huge demand on > plugin developers to update their code rather than expect JSPWiki to > continue to honour the older API, especially since generics were > introduced in Java 5 in 2004 -- that's really giving people many more > years than necessary. The value of generics and forcing updates to > likely outdated code is (IMO) a necessary step. People using pre-2004 > plugins should probably stay with the 2.8.x code base anyway, which is > completely functional. > > Murray Altheim and John Volkar both developed a lot of plugins. As I > said, I'm now the maintainer of those and am willing to make the changes > necessary conform to a <String,Object> API. There may be plugin > developers who wouldn't be aware of the com.ecyrd.jspwiki to > org.apache.wiki package change, but they'd also be unlikely to even > know of the new project under Apache. And if they were it doesn't seem > difficult to both provide a warning and force them to make a change that > should have occurred in 2004. > > But I also realise the vote on this one has already passed, so this is > the last message I'll send on this subject, unless further conversation > is warranted. > > Ichiro >
