10 Oct
2011
10 Oct
'11
10:13 a.m.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:31, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>wrote;wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi guys,
Ok here's second version taking into account Denis and Marius comments:
* Have a {{display}} macro which is equivalent to context=new and
resolve=source
(ie links resolved on the reference being displayed)
* Have a compatibility mode for the {{include}} macro
with the following
behavior:
** {{include}} in non-compatiiblity mode is
equivalent to context=current
and resolve=current (ie links resolve on the
including document)
** {{include}} in compatiiblity mode is
equivalent to context=current and
resolve=source (the default we have now and which
we need to not break
people)
* We would have a rendering.macro.include.compatibility configuration
property * We would set that property to true by default for
3.3 to give some time
for people to adjust
> * We would set that property to false by default for 3.4
-0, this is for me useless, since I doubt many understand that and have
notice this change in 3.x. I was unaware myself of this change, and I do not
remember any discussion about it in the past. If you have a ML thread about
the rational behind this mistake, I am still interested, but I it could have
been introduce without notice, it could be removed as well.
At least, this should not be in compatibility mode by default.
So you propose to get back to previous behavior by
default, right ?
Given the fact that it has been changed very recently maybe we should
have the property false right away and say it was a mistake ?
I agree.
* Deprecate
"document" parameter for the include macro and add a new
"reference" parameter + a new "type" parameter (I forgot that one in
my
first email). The "type" parameter represents the Entity Reference Type.
* Also add a "type" parameter for the
display macro (I forgot that one in
my first email)
* Have the "type" parameter default to
"document".
I forgot to mention the following point:
** The {{include}} macro has a new "resolve" parameter (the "context"
one
is deprecated) which can be "current" or "source".
This is needed since there are use cases both resolve=current and
resolve=source for the include macro. Once again the context param has
nothing to do with how links/images are resolved. And again the writer of a
page isn't necessarily the same as the person who's going to include your
page.
I am still -1 on this last point. First, it is precisely because it is very
difficult to understand the differences between the context and the resolve
parameter that I am against it. I repeat myself, but not having the same
behavior between $doc.getURL() and [[ ]] is for me not acceptable, since the
included document author could no more count on the equality of these to
resolution methods. If I have been aware of that change in 3.x I would have
veto it already.
Moreover, if the writer of the included document is the not the writer of
the including document, he would be better if he could stay in control of
how links/image are accessed, protecting the way its own document works, and
not leaving this to the including document author. This is why I have
proposed to move the resolve parameter on individual links, which is more
flexible and understandable.
Currently, AFAIK, during an {{include}} (without context=new), using
velocity, the included document do not have an easy access to itself
(without knowing its own name), but you want this possibility for links ?
and you want it globally ? This seems to me curious that something difficult
to do by code would be easy by syntax.
If you still want to convince me, please explain why you need $doc and
relative links to diverge, especially without the included document author
to be aware of this. What cannot you do with {{display}} that would be
possible by {{include resolve=source}}; and that would not be better served
by giving the control to the included document author ?
Denis
Some additional notes:
* The person writing a page is not necessarily the same as the person
writing an
include.
* With the new sheet mechanism there are a lot
less use cases for the
include in compatibility mode.
Please vote again.
Here's my +1
+1 (with the previous note)
Thanks
-Vincent
On Oct 6, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> As you know in XE 3.0 we've changed the behavior for resolving local
links/attachments when they're included using the {{include}} macro (they're
now resolved against the included document instead of the including
document).
>
> Now there might be some use cases (pretty rare IMO but they exist) where
you'd want the links to be resolved against the including document. Here's a
use case: you have a sheet document that references an image called
image.png and you want that the including document provides it (like an
Abstract in Java! ;)).
>
> So we've brainstormed with Thomas and here's our proposal:
>
> * Introduce a new {{display reference="…"/}} macro. This macro will
*execute* the passed reference in its own context (it'll do what {{include
context="new"…}} was doing before). It'll be located in the new display
module.
> * Deprecate the "context" parameter
of the {{include}} macro. The reason
is that calling with context=new is not an
include, it's a display.
> * Add a new "resolve" parameter for
the {{include}} macro with possible
values = "current" |
"source", with a default value of "source".
resolve=source means that the links/attachments are resolved against the
source (ie the document being included). Using resolve=current means that
you want the links/attachments resolved against the including document.
>
> Pros:
> * Clearly separate the 2 use cases: display and include
> * Make the include macro simple (a single "resolve" parameter)
> * Use the new display module as it should be and start the direction of
having
displayer macros for displaying all types of entities
>
> Note: In the future we'll also want to deprecate the "document"
parameter of the include macro in favor of a more generic "reference"
parameter, which will allow the macro to include other types of entities
(such as an object property for ex).
WDYT?
Here's my +1
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs