On 12/05/2012 12:28 PM, Chris Steipp wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]> wrote: >> You really want the spam filter extensions to have internal knowledge of >> Wikibase? That seems like a nasty cross-dependency, and goes directly against >> the idea of modularization and separation of concerns... >> >> We are running into the "glue code problem" here. We need code that knows >> about >> the spam filters and about wikibase. Should it be in the spam filter, in >> Wikibase, or in a separate, third extension? That would be cleanest, but a >> hassle to maintain... Which way would you prefer? > > I think Daniel has correctly stated the problem. > > My perspective: > > One of the directions of the Admin Tools project is to combine some of > the various tools into AbuseFilter, so I think it's safe to assume > that AbuseFilter will be around and maintained for some time, and > Wikidata could easily use the hooks it provides to do a lot of the > work providing the interface.
It makes sense for AbuseFilter and Wikidata to work in conjunction. But it seems Wikidata should provide a hook that AbuseFilter calls. What if someone wants to make spam filter that works differently than AbuseFilter? For example, it uses its own programmatic rules rather than ones that can be expressed in the Special:AbuseFilter language. If Wikidata exposes an API, AbuseFilter and other extensions can use it. Matt Flaschen _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
