13 Jan
2011
13 Jan
'11
9:24 a.m.
On Jan 13, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
I meant VETO, not VOTE...
On 01/11/2011 11:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Document is not deprecated as of now. It'll be deprecated one day when we have the
new model.
On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
IMO The cost of increasing the amount of deprecated API outweighs the cost of hardcoding
strings in
script. I should have said that I think there must be some use case with a compelling
rationale
which is simply impossible without the addition to the API. As it is now, we have
velocity code with
hardcoded strings and thus it must be refactored. With this change we will have velocity
code which
depends on deprecated API (Correct me if c.x.x.api.Document is not deprecated) and thus
must be
refactored.
On 01/10/2011 12:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> In lots of places we need to display the title without any markup rendering.
Examples:
> - breadcrumb
> - activity stream
> - search results
> etc
>
> This is such a common use case I'm proposing to add a new API for it in Document:
getPlainTitle()
> It's a one liner that will do:
>
> getRenderedTitle("plain/1.0")
You mean adding an alias to c.x.x.api.Document#getRenderedTitle("plain/1.0")?
yes because we don't want user of the API (from velocity) hardcoding strings as much
as possible. They don't need to know that internally there's a plain text renderer
called "plain/1.0".
If so, I am -0 on that because as I understand,
c.x.x.api.Document is on the road to being retired
with the old core and any new APIs there should
have very compelling rationales.
What part is not compelling? I will let my -0 stand because it's not
something I like the sound of but I accept that there are
many valid ways of doing things and I may well be missing an important piece if
information.
ok thanks. Since others were ok and your -0 is not a vote I have committed it. We'll need to review title handling in the future
in any case. I'm sending another mail on that.
Sent.
Thanks
-Vincent
Caleb
>
>> At least (IMO) they
>> should provide functionality which was previously unavailable without programming
permission.
>
> That's why I haven't proposed to put this in XWiiDocument but only in
Document. Document is scripting API and it makes a lot of sense for scripting, especially
since we don't have a way of sharing a final static String in Velocity.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Caleb
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Here's my +1
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent