On Dec 13, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: hmm I guess we could add them as backward-compat aspects.

Thanks -Vincent

On Dec 13, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: Note that I have now finished the refactoring locally and I'm waiting for a decision. FYI there are 93 files impacted but most are tests or files which don't expose APIs. In term of APIs there are probably something like 20 methods whose signature have changed (mostly from org.xwiki.bridge.DocumentName to org.xwiki.model.DocumentName). For developers it means replace "bridge" by "model" in imports. This is not a big change but it means they need to re-release whatever "extensions" they have done (if they used the bridge) when they move to XE 2.2. Personally I don't see any way of moving forward for the new model without breaking some backward compat and the bridge was always flagged as being temporary so I'm +1 to go ahead. I'd also like to continue working on the model in the 2.2 timeframe to ensure that what we release for 2.2 final will be stable (for example by introducing the WikiResourceName discussed in the other mail thread on the new model).

Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Dec 13, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: Note that I have now finished the refactoring locally and I'm waiting for a decision. FYI there are 93 files impacted but most are tests or files which don't expose APIs. In term of APIs there are probably something like 20 methods whose signature have changed (mostly from org.xwiki.bridge.DocumentName to org.xwiki.model.DocumentName). For developers it means replace "bridge" by "model" in imports. This is not a big change but it means they need to re-release whatever "extensions" they have done (if they used the bridge) when they move to XE 2.2. Personally I don't see any way of moving forward for the new model without breaking some backward compat and the bridge was always flagged as being temporary so I'm +1 to go ahead. I'd also like to continue working on the model in the 2.2 timeframe to ensure that what we release for 2.2 final will be stable (for example by introducing the WikiResourceName discussed in the other mail thread on the new model).

Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: ok I've checked more precisely what were the APIs that are broken and for which we could want to maintain backward compat (I have not listed internal implementation classes): 1) xwiki-bridge: - DocumentAccesssBridge - DocumentModelBridge - DocumentNameFactory - DocumentNameSerializer

2) xwiki-core: - XWikiDocument (for getDocumentName()) 3) xwiki-openoffice: - XDOMOfficeDocumentBuilder - XHTMLOfficeDocumentBuilder - TargetPageDescriptor - XDOMOfficeDocumentSplitter 4) xwiki-macro-wikibridge - WikiMacroManager - WikiMacroFactory 5) xwiki-url - XWikiAttachmentURL - XWikiDocumentURL So here's what I propose: - We keep backward compat for 1) and 2)

- We don't keep backward compat for 4) (I doubt it's used by anyone else and the backward compat has already been broken for that module a week ago) and for 5) (it's not used yet)

- I'm hesitating for 3). We could keep backward compat to make it easier for some projects. Thus I'm slighty in favor of keeping backward compat for it.

- We use aspects whenever we want to keep backward compat - We need a new method name in DocumentModelBridge to add in addition of getCurrentDocumentName(). I don't have a good idea: getDocumentName2(), getNewDocumentName(), getDocumentNameModel(), getDocumentNameFromModel(), etc. Any idea?

WDYT? Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: We also have in DAB: DocumentName getDocumentName(String documentName); DocumentName getCurrentDocumentName(); So I'd also propose: DocumentName getModelDocumentName(String documentName); DocumentName getModelCurrentDocumentName();

WDYT? Thanks -Vincent >> WDYT? >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>>>> On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> New proposal: >>>>>> Create a new xwiki-model and move "clean" classes from xwiki- >>>>>> bridge >>>>>> into it. These are: >>>>>> - *AttachmentName* >>>>>> - *DocumentName* >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's my +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> -Vincent >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Mortagne >>>>>> <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 18:00, Vincent Massol<vincent(a)massol.net >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since we have some final classes (final in the sense with a >>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>> architecture) in xwiki-bridge I'd like to rename it into >>>>>>>> xwiki- >>>>>>>> model >>>>>>>> so that we can start this model module. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note: We'd still have a org.xwiki.model.bridge package for the >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>> being in that xwiki-model module. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's my +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would prefer to create a new xwiki-model with only the clean >>>>>>> apis >>>>>>> instead of having clean and bridge in the same project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> -Vincent

On Dec 14, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:45, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 09:19, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 13, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Before voting please consider that this will break a lot of >>>>>> existing >>>>>> code which is currently using org.xwiki.bridge.DocumentName >>>>>> (since >>>>>> it would now be named org.xwiki.model.DocumentName). >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we want to keep org.xwiki.bridge.DocumentName (and all the >>>>>> others >>>>>> too) and deprecate them? >>>>>> >>>>>> IMO it depends if we agree that 2.2 will introduce the new >>>>>> model or >>>>>> not. >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Note that I have now finished the refactoring locally and I'm >>>>> waiting >>>>> for a decision. FYI there are 93 files impacted but most are >>>>> tests or >>>>> files which don't expose APIs. In term of APIs there are probably >>>>> something like 20 methods whose signature have changed (mostly >>>>> from >>>>> org.xwiki.bridge.DocumentName to org.xwiki.model.DocumentName). >>>>> >>>>> For developers it means replace "bridge" by "model" in imports. >>>>> This >>>>> is not a big change but it means they need to re-release whatever >>>>> "extensions" they have done (if they used the bridge) when they >>>>> move >>>>> to XE 2.2. >>>>> >>>>> Personally I don't see any way of moving forward for the new >>>>> model >>>>> without breaking some backward compat and the bridge was always >>>>> flagged as being temporary so I'm +1 to go ahead. I'd also like >>>>> to >>>>> continue working on the model in the 2.2 timeframe to ensure that >>>>> what >>>>> we release for 2.2 final will be stable (for example by >>>>> introducing >>>>> the WikiResourceName discussed in the other mail thread on the >>>>> new >>>>> model). >>>> >>>> I really don't like breaking API if it's not absolutely >>>> necessary and >>>> temporary or not bridge is public API, temporary does not mean >>>> suddenly vanish for no reason... I don't see why adding the new >>>> model >>>> would have to break the bridge, that's two different things for >>>> me and >>>> bridge should not be broken if there is not technical issue to >>>> keep it >>>> working. For things other than the bridge it's ok for me since >>>> it's >>>> more SPIs than APIs and i doubt anyone except us (or even any of >>>> our >>>> plugins) are using it. >>>> >>>> For example there is not reason to delete >>>> org.xwiki.bridge.AttachmentNameSerializer, >>>> org.xwiki.bridge.AttachmentNameFactory, >>>> org.xwiki.bridge.DocumentNameFactory, >>>> org.xwiki.bridge.DocumentNameFactory, ... And we just need to >>>> double >>>> methods in DocumentAccessBridge dealing with DocumentName to add >>>> methods using the new model.DocumentName if we need some. >>>> >>>> +1 for the new model but -1 to break anything in the bridge >>>> public API >>>> since it's very easy to not break it. >>> >>> ok I've checked more precisely what were the APIs that are broken >>> and >>> for which we could want to maintain backward compat (I have not >>> listed >>> internal implementation classes): >>> >>> 1) xwiki-bridge: >>> - DocumentAccesssBridge >>> - DocumentModelBridge >>> - DocumentNameFactory >>> - DocumentNameSerializer >> >> - AttachmentNameSerializer >> - AttachmentNameFactory >> >>> >>> 2) xwiki-core: >>> - XWikiDocument (for getDocumentName()) >>> >>> 3) xwiki-openoffice: >>> - XDOMOfficeDocumentBuilder >>> - XHTMLOfficeDocumentBuilder >>> - TargetPageDescriptor >>> - XDOMOfficeDocumentSplitter >>> >>> 4) xwiki-macro-wikibridge >>> - WikiMacroManager >>> - WikiMacroFactory >>> >>> 5) xwiki-url >>> - XWikiAttachmentURL >>> - XWikiDocumentURL >>> >>> So here's what I propose: >>> - We keep backward compat for 1) and 2) >> >> +1 for backward compatibility here, not sure we need aspects here >> since it basically mean put almost the whole module in aspects >> >>> - We don't keep backward compat for 4) (I doubt it's used by anyone >>> else and the backward compat has already been broken for that >>> module a >>> week ago) and for 5) (it's not used yet) >> >> +0.5 for no backward compatibility here >> >>> - I'm hesitating for 3). We could keep backward compat to make it >>> easier for some projects. Thus I'm slighty in favor of keeping >>> backward compat for it. >> >> Not sure either. I would be more in favor of keeping backward >> compatibility as a general good rule when possible. >> >>> - We use aspects whenever we want to keep backward compat >>> - We need a new method name in DocumentModelBridge to add in >>> addition >>> of getCurrentDocumentName(). I don't have a good idea: >>> getDocumentName2(), getNewDocumentName(), getDocumentNameModel(), >>> getDocumentNameFromModel(), etc. Any idea? >> >> getModelDocumentName() ? > > We also have in DAB: > > DocumentName getDocumentName(String documentName); > DocumentName getCurrentDocumentName(); > > So I'd also propose: > > DocumentName getModelDocumentName(String documentName); > DocumentName getModelCurrentDocumentName();

^^^^^ getCurrentModelDocumentName() Also I missed this one: List<AttachmentName> getAttachments(DocumentName documentName) throws Exception; ==> getModelAttachments WDYT? -Vincent

for which we could want to maintain backward compat (I have not listed internal implementation classes): 1) xwiki-bridge: - DocumentAccesssBridge - DocumentModelBridge - DocumentNameFactory - DocumentNameSerializer 2) xwiki-core: - XWikiDocument (for getDocumentName()) 3) xwiki-openoffice: - XDOMOfficeDocumentBuilder - XHTMLOfficeDocumentBuilder - TargetPageDescriptor - XDOMOfficeDocumentSplitter 4) xwiki-macro-wikibridge - WikiMacroManager - WikiMacroFactory 5) xwiki-url - XWikiAttachmentURL - XWikiDocumentURL So here's what I propose: - We keep backward compat for 1) and 2)

else and the backward compat has already been broken for that module a week ago) and for 5) (it's not used yet) - I'm hesitating for 3). We could keep backward compat to make it easier for some projects. Thus I'm slighty in favor of keeping backward compat for it.

- We need a new method name in DocumentModelBridge to add in addition of getCurrentDocumentName(). I don't have a good idea: getDocumentName2(), getNewDocumentName(), getDocumentNameModel(), getDocumentNameFromModel(), etc. Any idea? WDYT?

Hi Vincent, On 12/13/2009 11:35 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: It's gonna be a bit uncomfortable for making annotations work on both 2.1 & higher but it's gonna be uncomfortable for someone at some point anyway. Normally +1 but is there any chance we could create this situation just once? Right now I see at least 2 cases: one now and one when the bridge will be completely replaced by the xwiki-model. Otherwise put, is there any chance we could postpone this?

Thanks, Anca > > Thanks > -Vincent > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Mortagne > &lt;thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 18:00, Vincent Massol&lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Since we have some final classes (final in the sense with a good >>> architecture) in xwiki-bridge I'd like to rename it into xwiki- >>> model >>> so that we can start this model module. >>> >>> Note: We'd still have a org.xwiki.model.bridge package for the time >>> being in that xwiki-model module. >>> >>> Here's my +1 >> >> I would prefer to create a new xwiki-model with only the clean apis >> instead of having clean and bridge in the same project. >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent