On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Daniel Kinzler <[email protected] > wrote:
> Do we really want to manage something that is essentially configuration, > namely > the set of available content models and formats, in a database table? How > is it > maintained? > > For context: > * As per T113034, we are movign away from managing interwiki prefixes in > the > database, in favor of configuration files. > * Namespace IDs are defined in LocalSettings.php. > > The original design of ContentHandler used integer IDs for content models > and > formats in the DB. A mapping to human readable names is only needed for > logging > and error messages anyway. This oversimplifies things greatly. Integer IDs need to be mapped to some well-specified, non-local (global?) identifier for many many purposes (reading exports, writing exports, reading site content, displaying site content for many contexts, etc) As Jaime points out, we don't want or need 6 billion copies of the same identifier in our database. However, relegating that information to LocalSettings.php means that we'll have to manually sync that critical configuration data for use by non-PHP implementations interacting with the information. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Daniel Kinzler <[email protected] > wrote: > > I'm fine with the DB based solution, if we have decent tooling for > extensions to > register their content models, etc. We need to put a lot of thought into content model management generally. This statement implies managing content models outside of the database is easy. Rob > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
