Re: [xwiki-devs] [Discussion] Why drop the $msg script binding in the future?

The proposal about XWikiMessageTool was just a thought on how we could preserve the current behaviour. Practically, there are 2 main aspects to consider: 1) Ease of use: Internationalization is a key aspect in the platform, not just another service that may or may not be important, so I think that in the past, when using $msg, it was given the proper importance and ease of use. We must not lose that to flexibility. Also, consider the fact that non-technical users are already confused by the $msg.get() calls in a document's title and content, seeing a longer technical string won't help them much.

Scripting also needs to be quick an fun. Over-engineering it throws people away.

2) Semantics: I am not fond of the render() method when it concerns translation keys. I, as a regular dev that wants to script something, do not care about the fact that the XDOM is involved and that the translation is first retrieved and then rendered and all that mumbo-jumbo. For me, a translation is something that is retrieved by providing a key, in a more or less Map(/Hashtable) oriented manner, with a get() action. I understand that when you add translation parameters and choices in the translation's content things could get a bit funkier, but IMO we don`t need to get that technical for no reason. IMO render is a bit confusing and, since a "public Translation get(String key)" method exists on the service, it will be the cause for many useless errors.

Anyway, these are my concerns. If they are not shared, then I guess we`ll just let time decide if they were justified or not. Thanks, Eduard On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>wrote;wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mar 15, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Are we sure we want to drop the $msg binding in the future [1]? >> >> IMO yes, for consistency, but it's a good question to ask. It's not just > about $msg but about all bindings. If we allow "shortcut aliases for > bindings" we need to make this general and allow any services binding to > offer shortcuts. >> >> One reason we introduced $services was to keep the xcontext namespace > free for applications to use. > > s/xcontext/script context/ > > The idea was to keep the script bindings at a minimum so that it's not > a nightmare to find names for variables you want to use in your > script. > >> >>> Compared to other services, $services.localization would be used heavily >> >> I had personally proposed "l10n" to make it a bit shorter but it wasn't > accepted. My proposal was: $services.l10n > > I don't exactly see that in http://markmail.org/message/mv7psxctupfjkcu2;) > >> >>> inside scripts and we would basically have 2 options: >>> 1. use $services.localization.render('key') (you fall asleep writing > this >>> every time) >>> 2. always declare a variable in your script like #set ($keys = >>> $services.localization) and then do $keys.render('key') >> >> 3. Use the translation macro if you're in wiki pages: {{translation > key="…"/}} >> >>> AFAIK, we have already considered in the past that a similarly used > service >>> like $services.model is already becoming a bit annoying having to write > the >>> oh-so-very-long "$services.model.createDocumentReference(wiki, >>> space,name)"; do we want to get the same effect with the new > localization >>> module? >> >> @Edy, we really need to commit the auto completion feature ;) >> >>> I understand and agree that the new localization module is more powerful >>> and flexible than the XWikiMessageTool, but I feel that those new > features >>> are not required in day to day use and unnecessarily crowd/pollute the >>> regularly used API. >> >> You're loosing me here. I thought you were only talking about the > binding name and here you start to say that you want to go back to > XWikiMessageTool? >> >>> This transition should IMO be smoother >> >> Smoother than what? >> >>> and with less impact than what is >>> currently being proposed. If the new localization module can provide all >>> the features of the XWikiMessageTool, then I propose that we simply > reuse >>> the $msg binding as it is and, in the background, transform >>> XWikiMessageTool into a facade (as I see we have already pretty much > done >>> to preserve backwards compatibility), but agree that we *keep* $msg as > the >>> simplified translations binding, to be used in day to day operations > and, >>> for more complex tasks, the dev needs to use $services.localization > instead. >> >> I don't understand what you mean. If your idea is to get $msg.get() > rather than $msg.render() which is the new API then I don't agree. If what > you propose is just to have a generic "script service alias" notion where > $msg would be the same as $services.localization then I'm more inclined to > think about it :) >> >> BTW I would not want to reuse the same name ($msg) because it's > misleading. >> >>> Basically, I`m proposing to apply the KIS(s) principle. :) >> >> Another option is to not change anything at the level of java (i.e. no > "script service alias") but in xwikivars.vm add a velocity variable named > $l10n: >> #set ($l10n = $services.localization) >> >> This is basically your option 2) above but made generic by putting it in > xwikivars.vm. >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Eduard