What is wrong with making extensions work right now both with and without
it?
--
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:19:25 -0700, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]>
wrote:
This is not a good idea. We should wait until the ContentHandler branch
is
fully QAd and we are sure it will not be reverted before converting
extensions over to using it.
*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | [email protected]
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Daniel Friesen
<[email protected]
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:37:47 -0700, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]>
wrote:
Since the ContentHandler stuff has been merged into the core, several
much-used
functions and hooks have been deprecated. I have tried to find and
replace all
calls in core, but a lot of extensions are still using the old stuff.
They will
still work for all text-based content, but will generate a ton of
warnings, and
will fail tests (and make core tests fail).
I'm very worried about converting all of the extensions to use new
APIs now. If it turns out we need to revert ContentHandler, this will
make the revert that much more difficult.
I'd rather we remove deprecation warnings for the newly deprecated
APIs.
Rob
So use a conditional to check for the contenthandler classses/methods.
--
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
