10 Oct
2011
10 Oct
'11
11:08 a.m.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:49, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>wrote;wrote:
Anyone else thinking like this ? I would certainly be happy to to
having to find a way to put all that in aspects...
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
This what 3) means to me, move the plugin to retire, and delete the method.
I am almost sure that building the aspect will be useless, so if this is
long and difficult leave it.
(I have never converted existing code in aspect, so I do not know well the
hard work it could be)
From what you say, +1 for 3). On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 15:22, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
field.
Just seen that we have a bunch of display related
method based on
Query plugin for which we don't have any alternative to propose right
now.
Basically it's supposed to allow to easily display a search form for
any field the same way you can display a edit form.
Note that from what I understood from a conversation we had with
Denis it's not working very well.
I should confirm that, I would have said that it is not working at all if
you want to do anything more than very basic search with simple text There is issue with list, multi-select, boolean,
etc...
We have used it after some patches, part of them were commited to master,
but not all.
So I doubt there is any user of these functions that also intend to
migrate
to the latest version.
work.
So what do we do after all ?
1) nothing
2) still deprecate and move to legacy, is app within minutes supposed
to provide an alternative ?
3) move to retired
WDYT ?
I'm now -1 for 3) since it's impossible to move method to retired.
From what I know of it, and +1 for 2) and even +1 for 3) if it is less We use it on 2.4 currently, but if I have to
upgrade any site using it to
3.x, I will probably rewrite the search part anyway.
I know we do not have an alternative, but it is a function that is not
really used anyway due to its caveat. So this is not an issue to retire
it
now. Of course, we should think about providing
similar search feature in
the future.
I'm not really against the idea of retire it but I have no idea how to
retire methods so it's either move them to legacy with aspects or
delete them (which would be a lot easier than putting that in aspect
since right now I have no idea how to put interface method in an
aspect, need to look at AspectJ doc).
Denis
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
Denis
>
> I would says lets still deprecate and move it to legacy even if we
> don't provide right now an exact alternative, it's not like it was
> making impossible to search something since we don't use this at all
> in XE/XEM since a very long time AFAIK.
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 30, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi dev,
> >>>>
> >>>> The new query manager component work pretty well and starts to be
used
> >>>> more and more so I think we
should remove
com.xpn.xwiki.plugin.query.
> >>>>
> >>>> So here is the proposals:
> >>>> (1) move it to legacy
> >>>> (2) move it to retired is it's own maven project so that
it's easy
to
> >>>> build and produce a jar if
someone wants to use it
> >>>>
> >>>> Note planning to do it in 3.2, that's for 3.3M1.
> >>>>
> >>>> WDYT ?
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 for (2): it's the last thing that trigger dependency on
jackrabbit
> >>>> so even if we get rid of
jackrabbit in oldcore by moving it to
> >>>> legacy-oldcore it would still be in XE
> >>>
> >>> I'd say (1) then (2) since it could be used by some external code.
> >>
> >> It's the same for any other things we retired. The question is more
do
> >> we still want to maintain it
(legacy) or not (retired), in both case
> >> anyone can still use it if he really wants either by using the 3.2
> >> version or building the retired one.
> >
> > Denis said he was still using it so I'd say yes to put it in legacy
for
now.
> Denis, how long should it stay there in your opinion?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs