24 May
2011
24 May
'11
6:59 p.m.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:55, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:39, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>wrote;wrote:
An idea to avoid duplicating all the searchDocument methods is to add
the hiddent document setup at org.xwiki.query.Query level.
Basically we come back to clean searchDocument implementation in
XWikiHibernateStore and we put the hidden document filter support in
Query interface with a Query#setHiddenFiltered or something like that.
In any case using query manager is supposed to be the proper current
way of dealing with XWiki model so we don't have to support anything
in "old" storage APIs.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:35, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Anyway whatever the real difference between 1) and 3) I think we need
a filtering system and the way it's done now is bad.
So, you (Thomas and Jerome) would be in favor of reverting to the old
behavior, improving the feature by using a boolean for example, and setting
that boolean only when we want the filter applied (for example, in calls
from the public API). Since I completely agree that this should have been
done that way in the first place, I would like to propose that in vote. is
there any comments from others before I do ? On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:29, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 16:17, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>wroteote:
>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 15:57, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
>> > Hi Devs,
>> >
>> > Anyone of you will surely agree that the hidden document feature
>> implemented
>> > in the store is very bad.
>>
>> The way this "feature" is implemented should never have been accepted,
>> it just broke an API for something that is not really related to
>> storage...
>>
>> See http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3925 and its dependencies.
>>
>> > IMO, it has never been fully implemented, probably in the hope of a
>> better
>> > way to go, and it is so for too long. I think it is the time to take
some
>> > decision about it, or I do not see
the direction and I do not
understand
>> > where we want to go ?
>> >
>> > I see 3 possibilities:
>> > 1) we remove it and found other way to solve the problem it solves,
>> which
>> > are currently limited to the Blog, ColorThemes and Panels
applications in
>> a
>> > standard XE.
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> Do you means that you are +1 for reverting the code to what it was
before
> that feature, and putting some code in each
application using it to
avoid
> the effet of the revert ?
>
>
>>
>> > 2) we keep it as it is, since it could be hard to implement higher
in
>> the
>> > current implementation, but then we need to fix the places where it
cause
> >
issues.
>
> -1, I can see it as a long term solution. It's something to say we
> will fix it latter it's something else to validate it. Adding a
> boolean to searchDocument as indicated in
> http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3925 would already be a lot
> better than the current situation.
>
> > 3) we implement the feature using another method ?
>
> I don't fully understand what is the difference between 1) and 3).
>
The difference is that in 3), you propose an alternative solution to the
same issue, which is hiding document from public interface.
"putting some code in each application using it to avoid the effet of
the revertv" is pretty much the same thing as "propose an alternative
solution to the same issue": in both case searchDocument go back to
what is used to be and you need to filter another way
> Maybe, 3) is more like your proposal for 2), while 2) means using search
in
> place of searchDocument to bypass the
filter.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > If we choose 1), early in 3.x release is the probably best moment for
it,
>> > since it is a breakage in
compatibility, I am -0 on this however.
>> >
>> > If we choose 2), we need to make it work properly by fixing places
where
>> we
>> > need to include all document, including hidden one. I have some old
patch
>> to
>> > the application-manager to export hidden document (ie: currently the
blog
>> > application does not export
properly), to the skinx plugin that does
not
>> > apply 'always' skin
extensions contained in hidden document, and
there is
>> > probably other places.
>> >
>> > If we choose 3) now, what do you proposed to better implement it. I
have
>> > read some comments that it was a UI
level stuff implemented at the
store
>> > level, but I do not see how it could
be done better in the current
>> > implementation.
>> >
>> > Moreover, if we keep the feature, I think that it should be exposed
>> somehow
>> > to the admins, allowing the creation of hidden document, but also
listing
>> > them, deleting them properly, etc...
Concerning the document provided
>> with
>> > XE, I also wonder what could be the rules for hiding them or not ?
Why
>> not
>> > also hidding stock document in the XWiki space, just keeping users
and
> some
> > top level documents ?
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> > --
> > Denis Gervalle
> > SOFTEC sa - CEO
> > eGuilde sarl - CTO
> > _______________________________________________
> > devs mailing list
> > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne