11 Oct
2011
11 Oct
'11
1:43 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
Ok lets move it to legacy for now, I have it ready to be merged anyway.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
+1 for 2) ie move to legacy. The reason I say this is because I don't know if
it's used or not in the wild so I prefer to take the careful route and 1) deprecate
the methods, 2) move to legacy for a few releases and 3) then completely remove in, say,
4.0M1. 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:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 15:22, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> wrote:
>
>> 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
field.
> 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.
>
>
>>
>> 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
work.
> 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).
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).
If Ludovic tells us he doesn't remember it to be used anywhere then I'd be +1 for
3).
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
> Denis
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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