I will delete all the others.
2013/10/21 Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com>
2013/10/11 Eduard Moraru
<enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
>
> Technical note: Looking at the code, I can`t see these
> WikiPropertyGroups
> being handled anywhere. I imagine that you would have to delegate the
> task
> of creating WikiDescriptor instances to the WikiManager which will, in
> turn, be in charge of querying all the WikiPropertyGroupProviders and
> populating the new WikiDescriptor with these properties before
> returning it
> to the caller.
>
> You speak of WikiPropertyGroup as a storage location. However, in the
> code,
> I see that each provider is supposed to save the properties itself, so
> it
> is in charge of picking a physical location for these properties to be
> stored. The WikiDescriptor would only be a logical location where
> applications might store and read information/properties **about** the
> wiki. When an application would store a new property for a wiki in a
> certain property group, that group's provider will be in charge of
> physically storing the value in the location where that group's
> properties
> are physically stored.
>
> It would be an interesting idea, but I find that it would be much more
> productive as a generic service of its own and not just limited to
> wikis.
> It is easy to imagine the need for such a service in the case of users.
> Applications might want to store/query properties for the current user,
> maybe for the current space and so on. For users, right now we`re
> storing
> stuff in the user profile. For wikis, we`d probably store it in
> XWikiPreferences, SpacePreferences for spaces and so on.
>
> Maybe something a bit like what we do with ConfiguratinSource, but
> targeted
> on certain entities (wikis, users, etc)
>
>
https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-commons/blob/master/xwiki-commons-core/xwiki…
> ...however, what I don`t like about ConfigurationSource is that it is
> ReadOnly.
>
> Would be a shame to spend the effort and not to make it a generic
> solution.
>
> WDYT?
>
I think it is a good idea. But I won't have the time to do it for 5.3.
I want to continue on what I have already proposed, and we could still
make a generic solution after.
Thanks,
Louis-Marie