On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Victor Vasiliev <vasi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think instead of using individual constant, we should finally introduce a > Capabilities class. > > It should have a single static method, has(), which indicates whether a > certain capability is registered within the system. At the beginning, > capabilities will be listed as static members of that class, but we may do > something more clever at the future. > > I would also suggest that we introduce a policy of adding a capability for > any new hook we add. Or we could parse docs/hooks.txt in order to avoid > duplication (probably moving it somewhere).
I think this is a good idea. The case for that is here: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureToggle.html Gotta love an article that starts with "Imagine you are releasing into production every two weeks..." :) Some bikeshedding: I'm a little concerned with using the term "Capabilities", since I generally hear that term more frequently in designing software security models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
