4 Апрель 2013 г. 10:11:44 пользователь Daniel Friesen
([email protected]) написал:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:23:41 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> 4 Апрель 2013 г. 9:16:49 пользователь Jeroen De Dauw
>> ([email protected]) написал:
>> Hey,
>> > I see no reason to get rid of the hooks class.
>> Given you also do not understand why I think the comment is funny, I
>> recommend you read up on why writing static code is harmful. And on how
>> global state can hide in static "classes".
>> > We use static classes other places in core.
>> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
>> In almost all such cases I have seen in core this kind of use of static
>> is
>> bad.
>> > And there's no reason to revert to hideous functions like we had
>> before.
>> No one is suggesting that.
>> Cheers
>> --
>>
> Why the hooks should not be static? Multi-site (farm) built-in support
> in core without $wgConf? Common page table across multiple sites?
> Dmitriy
How do you envision non-static hooks working and supporting multiple wikis?
If hooks will be non-static, should the hooks become the members of
RequestContext, maybe?
Dmitriy
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
