25 May
2011
25 May
'11
9:43 a.m.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 21:17, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 20:31, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>wrote;wrote:
No sure what you propose in detail but I'm -1 to have
withHiddenDocument to true by default in DefaultQuery, it should be
set to true in QueryManagerScriptService methods.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 20:19, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
use
What about the default ? wouldn't it be to filter hidden document by the
default, since creating XWQL query is public and we want public API to be
filtered ? Then the function could be Query#withHiddenDocument(boolean) and
require PR to set it true ? On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 18:59, Thomas Mortagne
<
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>wroteote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:55, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:39, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>wroteote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 17:35, Thomas Mortagne
> >> <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> >> > 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
> >>
> >> 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 ?
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.
But to meet the objective of XWIKI-2843, which is to hide hidden document
from all public API (those not requiring PR), this would also means to org.xwiki.query.Query in all existing public API,
or deprecate all those
not
using it ?
I'm ok with either refactoring them to use query manager behind the
scene (if I don't have to do it ;)) or just deprecate them. Whatever
the solution they should probably be deprecated anyway since they are
supposed to be covered by query manager AFAIK.
Is there any existing usage of Query that should be
fix to not became broken
by this new behavior ?
Looks like there are not much (which is not very good...).
I could only find the following:
* Scheduler.WebHome
* XWiki/WikiMacros
* createinline.vm
There is much more in java but it would not be affected.
WDYT ?
--
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
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
_______________________________________________
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