On 04/18/2014 05:35 PM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote: > Hey, > > Is there some kind of description of the responsibility of the context > source stuff anywhere? And the design vision behind it? I find the whole > thing extremely dubious, as it appears to try make you bind to a whole > group of rather scary classes. Perhaps I am missing something? > > Cheers > > -- > Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com > Software craftsmanship advocate > Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany > ~=[,,_,,]:3 > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Jeroen, thanks for your message. Looks like we are still working on merging the "Make abstract Config class truly implementation-agnostic" changeset.[0] We came out of the Architecture Summit with a lot of momentum[1] for replacing our direct use of global variables throughout the system. We agreed on "Basic hygiene of taking what's already being used (JSON configuration like EventLogging, Zero, and UploadWizard campaigns) and separating into separate extension or integrating into Core." But we don't really have a clear design document/discussion of the current path forward, as far as I know. We've also talked about the "Graphical configuration interface" RfC (formerly "Configuration database 2") a little bit[2][3] but could use a lot more speccing out of requirements. [0] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/109850/ [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Architecture_Summit_2014/Configuration [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2013-11-20 [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_meetings/RFC_review_2014-03-12 -- Sumana Harihareswara Senior Technical Writer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
