15 Nov
2011
15 Nov
'11
6:25 p.m.
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
Not my goals, just want to be explicit and easy to use.
I simply provide the need constructor, no more.
If you say this then you say that we don't need generic parameters for References
which is what started the discussion…
Also what you say is not correct at all since we already know we need Version which you
didn't put.
Last, it means passing null to the constuctors when you don't use the parameters which
is really really bad IMO or you'll need to define lots of various constructors which
increase exponentially with the number of parameters we support.
However this won't even work since you won't be able to support adding new
parameters. Users of the Reference system will need to modify its source if they wish to
add a new parameter which again goes against the initial proposal.
I suggest not to have loosely typed parameters, but strong one, like Locale
and Version.
I'm a big big big -1 on this.
There's no reason to create a fake String when all you need is a string. Same for int,
long, Number, etc.
Same for also if you want to have several Locales or several Versions.
Maybe this is where we don't agree. This is the original idea: to have a set of
"unknown" parameters for extensibility (from the POV of the Reference of course,
from the POV of XWiki they are not unknown obviously ;)). This means that it's up to
the users of the References to decide what parameters to put and it's up to the
consumers to decide what parameters to support.
It seems to me your vision is to:
* Not support arbitrary parameters
* Only support Version and Locale
* Provide 3 constructors, one where there's no Locale no Version, one with Locale no
version and one with Version on Locale
Whereas my vision is:
* Support arbitrary parameters for extensibility (like a URL if you prefer which support
arbitrary parameters)
* Have some "well-known" parameters so that xwiki code that users References
know what they can put as reference parameters and what they can extract from XWiki
parameters.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 17:11, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
See below.
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
IMO.
I would means that this should not cause so many additional constructors,
if we list them individually.
So your have not the same vision then I have :) Hi Devs,
The implementation of the immutable version of reference is almost ready
now. It introduce the parameters on reference as suggested, but we now
have
a discussion on how the constructors of
"typed" entity reference should
be.
My initial dev was to provide constructor like:
you're missing something here :)
But Vincent have different vision of this, here
its comment extracted
from
I don't have a different vision. It's just that you limited your proposal
to just Locale which clearly isn't good enough.
GitHub (
https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/cea424914f40ce924afbc49b3159…
)
:
My proposal was:
> - generic params in EntityReference
> - helpers methods for get/setLocale and get/setVersion in
DocumentReference
>
> Now the fact that we're making the refs immutable changed this since
it's
> no longer possible.
>
> I don't think multiplying the constructor signatures is a good idea.
>
> We could either have:
>
> public DocumentReference(String wikiName, List spaceNames, String
> pageName, Map<String, Object> parameters)
>
> or
>
> public DocumentReference(String wikiName, List spaceNames, String
> pageName, Pair<String, Object>... parameters)
>
> where Pair is
>
http://commons.apache.org/lang/api-3.0-beta/org/apache/commons/lang3/Pair.h…
>
> Maybe this needs some discussion on the devs list rather than here to
make
sure
everyone sees it?
I am myself not really happy with that since I dislike the idea that
parameter are generic on "typed" references.
Do not like either the idea to provide keys for creating a Map or Pairs,
since the implementation details that use Map should not be so exposed
There should not be so much parameter on a single "typed" reference,
I don't understand this sentence.
The Map is <String, Object>.
and
these should be easy to provide. Creating Maps in java is not fun in
syntax
for that IMO, and is far too open.
Sure but the goal here is not to redo java…
I had propose using overloaded constructor like
public DocumentReference(String wikiName, List<String> spaceNames, String
pageName, Locale locale)
Again, this doesn't work. It only works for a **single** parameter. It
doesn't work for multiple parameters. How do you specify the Locale or some
unknown String param?
or if something more flexible should be used
public DocumentReference(String wikiName, List<String> spaceNames, String
pageName, Object... parameters)
where parameters is later interpreted based on object type and limited to
those used for a given typed reference.
This doesn't work. If I have 2 parameters of type String, how do you map
them automatically?
Also the goal
is to have unknown parameters so how can you do a mapping
for something unknown? :)
That is clearly not my goal, why do you want unknown parameters on Document
Reference ? > Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Here Vincent comments on this:
>>
>>> The automatic mapping idea seems a bad idea to me (too magic and doesn't
>>> work in a lot of cases).
>>
>>
>> Maybe some of you have an even better idea ?
>>
>> Denis