On Jan 13, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
On 01/11/2011 11:50 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
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?
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.
Document is not deprecated as of now. It'll be deprecated one day when we have the new model.
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.
I meant VETO, not VOTE...
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