Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-22 Thread Legoktm


On 01/21/2015 09:39 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
 Hey,
 
 Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?

It's a little bit faster by cutting down one function call which adds up
when a lot of hooks are called.

-- Legoktm

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-22 Thread Mark A. Hershberger
Legoktm legoktm.wikipe...@gmail.com writes:

 On 01/21/2015 09:39 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
 Hey,
 
 Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?

 It's a little bit faster by cutting down one function call which adds up
 when a lot of hooks are called.

adds up is a poor defense for creating work for end users and
developers.  Has anyone actually measured what the difference is or is
this just an example of premature optimization[1]?

Mark.

Footnotes: 
[1]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization#When_to_optimize

-- 
Mark A. Hershberger
NicheWork LLC
717-271-1084

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-22 Thread Bryan Davis
On Thursday, January 22, 2015, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.com
wrote:

 Legoktm legoktm.wikipe...@gmail.com javascript:; writes:

  On 01/21/2015 09:39 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
  Hey,
 
  Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?
 
  It's a little bit faster by cutting down one function call which adds up
  when a lot of hooks are called.

 adds up is a poor defense for creating work for end users and
 developers.  Has anyone actually measured what the difference is or is
 this just an example of premature optimization[1]?

 Mark.

 Footnotes:
 [1]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization#When_to_optimize

 I don't have before/after measurements but Aaron started changing from
wfRunHooks to direct Hook calls based on data gathered from WMF production
profiling. There was a non-trivial performance impact of the additional
layer of indirection.

Bryan


-- 
Bryan Davis  Wikimedia Foundationbd...@wikimedia.org
[[m:User:BDavis_(WMF)]]  Sr Software EngineerBoise, ID USA
irc: bd808v:415.839.6885 x6855
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-22 Thread Chad
On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 1:10:27 PM Bryan Davis bd...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Thursday, January 22, 2015, Mark A. Hershberger m...@nichework.com
 wrote:

  Legoktm legoktm.wikipe...@gmail.com javascript:; writes:
 
   On 01/21/2015 09:39 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
   Hey,
  
   Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?
  
   It's a little bit faster by cutting down one function call which adds
 up
   when a lot of hooks are called.
 
  adds up is a poor defense for creating work for end users and
  developers.  Has anyone actually measured what the difference is or is
  this just an example of premature optimization[1]?
 
  Mark.
 
  Footnotes:
  [1]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization#When_to_optimize
 
  I don't have before/after measurements but Aaron started changing from
 wfRunHooks to direct Hook calls based on data gathered from WMF production
 profiling. There was a non-trivial performance impact of the additional
 layer of indirection.


Sure, but obvious performance gains are obvious. The real question to
me is was moving it into a static function inside of Hooks a benefit over
it just being a global function? My guess is no, not really.

-Chad
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-21 Thread Jeroen De Dauw
Hey,

Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?
 Assuming that we want to switch to non-static function calls eventually
 (which I hope is the case), wouldn't it be friendlier towards extension
 maintainers to only deprecate once we are there, instead of forcing them to
 update twice?


Good points and questions. While this deprecation is not as problematic as
simply ditching the current hook system altogether, it does indeed seem a
bit of busy work.

The Hooks class has this comment Used to supersede $wgHooks, because
globals are EVIL., which is quite amusing if you consider all fields and
methods are static. So it's a switch from a global var to a global field,
thus adding a second global to get rid of the first one. I have this
presentation on static code which has a screenshot of this comment and
class in it :)

Cheers

--
Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com
Software craftsmanship advocate
Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany
~=[,,_,,]:3
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-21 Thread Brian Wolff
On Jan 21, 2015 1:40 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hey,

 Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?
  Assuming that we want to switch to non-static function calls eventually
  (which I hope is the case), wouldn't it be friendlier towards extension
  maintainers to only deprecate once we are there, instead of forcing
them to
  update twice?
 

 Good points and questions. While this deprecation is not as problematic as
 simply ditching the current hook system altogether, it does indeed seem a
 bit of busy work.

 The Hooks class has this comment Used to supersede $wgHooks, because
 globals are EVIL., which is quite amusing if you consider all fields and
 methods are static. So it's a switch from a global var to a global field,
 thus adding a second global to get rid of the first one. I have this
 presentation on static code which has a screenshot of this comment and
 class in it :)

 Cheers

 --
 Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com
 Software craftsmanship advocate
 Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany
 ~=[,,_,,]:3

Ill be honest i dont understand the point of deprecating that. As you say
the evil globalness is the same amount of evil regardless of the type of
global symbol. And really i dont think global hooks causes too many
problems.

--bawolff
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-21 Thread Dmitriy Sintsov
They probably could turn that global class into facade - compact form of
IoC container Laravel framework uses.
Dmitriy


On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jan 21, 2015 1:40 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Hey,
 
  Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?
   Assuming that we want to switch to non-static function calls eventually
   (which I hope is the case), wouldn't it be friendlier towards extension
   maintainers to only deprecate once we are there, instead of forcing
 them to
   update twice?
  
 
  Good points and questions. While this deprecation is not as problematic
 as
  simply ditching the current hook system altogether, it does indeed seem a
  bit of busy work.
 
  The Hooks class has this comment Used to supersede $wgHooks, because
  globals are EVIL., which is quite amusing if you consider all fields and
  methods are static. So it's a switch from a global var to a global field,
  thus adding a second global to get rid of the first one. I have this
  presentation on static code which has a screenshot of this comment and
  class in it :)
 
  Cheers
 
  --
  Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com
  Software craftsmanship advocate
  Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany
  ~=[,,_,,]:3

 Ill be honest i dont understand the point of deprecating that. As you say
 the evil globalness is the same amount of evil regardless of the type of
 global symbol. And really i dont think global hooks causes too many
 problems.

 --bawolff
 ___
 Wikitech-l mailing list
 Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-20 Thread Chad
On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 4:20:47 PM Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hey,

 I just noticed wfRunHooks got deprecated. The hook mechanism is heavily
 depended on by extensions. So if it is going away, what will it be replaced
 by? There is no hint of this in the method doc.


Hooks::run().

-Chad
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-20 Thread Daniel Friesen
On 2015-01-20 4:21 PM, Chad wrote:
 On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 4:20:47 PM Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Hey,

 I just noticed wfRunHooks got deprecated. The hook mechanism is heavily
 depended on by extensions. So if it is going away, what will it be replaced
 by? There is no hint of this in the method doc.


 Hooks::run().

 -Chad
Heh, yay.

To bad we're not deprecating $wgHooks - Hooks::register.
I've had ideas that are impossible to do with $wgHooks.

((IIRC it was something about storing a light stack in debug mode of
where Hooks::register is called so hook related errors, deprecation
notices, etc... (or it might have been for a different kind of error)
can actually tell you where the hook was registered))

~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

[Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-20 Thread Jeroen De Dauw
Hey,

I just noticed wfRunHooks got deprecated. The hook mechanism is heavily
depended on by extensions. So if it is going away, what will it be replaced
by? There is no hint of this in the method doc.

Cheers

--
Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com
Software craftsmanship advocate
Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany
~=[,,_,,]:3
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-20 Thread Jeroen De Dauw
Hey,

 Hooks::run()

Oh, in that case there is not much to worry about.

Added a note in
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/186115/1/includes/GlobalFunctions.php

Cheers

--
Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com
Software craftsmanship advocate
Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany
~=[,,_,,]:3
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] wfRunHooks deprecation

2015-01-20 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:

  I just noticed wfRunHooks got deprecated. The hook mechanism is heavily
  depended on by extensions. So if it is going away, what will it be
 replaced
  by? There is no hint of this in the method doc.
 
 Hooks::run().


Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?
Assuming that we want to switch to non-static function calls eventually
(which I hope is the case), wouldn't it be friendlier towards extension
maintainers to only deprecate once we are there, instead of forcing them to
update twice?
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l