| Smalyshev added a comment. |
Its not a must have requirement, but if there are no performance or other major disadvantages,
Complexity is one. I'm a big fan of YAGNI :) I'm not 100% against supporting it, but doubtful whether it's actually needed.
I am not sure what would be the best way to split WDQS and OSM code
Since context controls the link between service URI and class, we could have two classes, one implementing base API and one extending it, and have WDQS part only have the base class and OSM part have extended class and put it as URI implementation instead of the base one. Not sure how easy this is to do but it looks possible (without looking deeply into the code).
TASK DETAIL
EMAIL PREFERENCES
To: Smalyshev
Cc: NavinoEvans, Pasleim, Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE, Smalyshev, Aklapper, Yurik, Lahi, Gq86, Darkminds3113, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, EBjune, merbst, LawExplorer, Avner, debt, Reasno, Gehel, Jonas, FloNight, Xmlizer, jkroll, Wikidata-bugs, Jdouglas, Base, aude, Tobias1984, Manybubbles, jayvdb, zhuyifei1999, Mbch331, Jay8g
Cc: NavinoEvans, Pasleim, Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE, Smalyshev, Aklapper, Yurik, Lahi, Gq86, Darkminds3113, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, EBjune, merbst, LawExplorer, Avner, debt, Reasno, Gehel, Jonas, FloNight, Xmlizer, jkroll, Wikidata-bugs, Jdouglas, Base, aude, Tobias1984, Manybubbles, jayvdb, zhuyifei1999, Mbch331, Jay8g
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
