[xwiki-devs] [PROPOSAL] Rename Document*Event + new events before document save
Hi devs, This is a buy one, get two proposal. I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply to the naming rules we've agreed on (see http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of two new ones. Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as the preverify method in old XWiki.java. WDYT ? I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do).
On 12/05/2010 03:20 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
This is a buy one, get two proposal.
I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply to the naming rules we've agreed on (see http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of two new ones.
Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as the preverify method in old XWiki.java.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do).
+1, and +1 for 2.7. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On 12/05/2010 04:20 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Hi devs,
This is a buy one, get two proposal.
I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply to the naming rules we've agreed on (see http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of two new ones.
Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as the preverify method in old XWiki.java.
WDYT ?
+1 for 3.0 +0 for 2.7 Thanks, Marius
I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do). _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 15:20, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This is a buy one, get two proposal.
I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply to the naming rules we've agreed on (see http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of two new ones.
Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as the preverify method in old XWiki.java.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do). _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-0 if you do only that ;) If you start refactoring theses events it would be a good idea to also: - move them to bridge module (we can't move them to model module since theses events still send XWikiContext and XWikiDocument) - refactor them to be based on references instead of strings -- Thomas Mortagne
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 15:20, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This is a buy one, get two proposal.
I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply to the naming rules we've agreed on (see http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of two new ones.
Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as the preverify method in old XWiki.java.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do). _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-0 if you do only that ;)
Fair enough :)
If you start refactoring theses events it would be a good idea to also: - move them to bridge module (we can't move them to model module since theses events still send XWikiContext and XWikiDocument) - refactor them to be based on references instead of strings
OK. One more question : are you guys OK to maintain compatibility for the events to be deprecated in an aspect ? (+1 from me) Jerome.
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:03, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 15:20, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This is a buy one, get two proposal.
I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply to the naming rules we've agreed on (see http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of two new ones.
Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as the preverify method in old XWiki.java.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do). _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-0 if you do only that ;)
Fair enough :)
If you start refactoring theses events it would be a good idea to also: - move them to bridge module (we can't move them to model module since theses events still send XWikiContext and XWikiDocument) - refactor them to be based on references instead of strings
OK.
One more question : are you guys OK to maintain compatibility for the events to be deprecated in an aspect ?
(+1 from me)
Aspect I don't know but we need to have something listening to new events and generating old events (not sure what is doable with an aspect). Also I think old events and bridge I described should be moved in some "xwiki-legacy" module or something like that to clean up observation module. That way components already built will work inside XWiki but will need to be refactored when core dependency is upgraded.
Jerome.
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:03, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 15:20, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This is a buy one, get two proposal.
I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply to the naming rules we've agreed on (see http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of two new ones.
Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as the preverify method in old XWiki.java.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do). _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-0 if you do only that ;)
Fair enough :)
If you start refactoring theses events it would be a good idea to also: - move them to bridge module (we can't move them to model module since theses events still send XWikiContext and XWikiDocument) - refactor them to be based on references instead of strings
OK.
One more question : are you guys OK to maintain compatibility for the events to be deprecated in an aspect ?
(+1 from me)
Aspect I don't know but we need to have something listening to new events and generating old events (not sure what is doable with an aspect).
Also I think old events and bridge I described should be moved in some "xwiki-legacy" module or something like that to clean up observation module.
Old events OK, but new bridge events should rather go in bridge module no ? Or am I misunderstanding something ? Jerome.
That way components already built will work inside XWiki but will need to be refactored when core dependency is upgraded.
Jerome.
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:24, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:03, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 15:20, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This is a buy one, get two proposal.
I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply to the naming rules we've agreed on (see http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of two new ones.
Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as the preverify method in old XWiki.java.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do). _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-0 if you do only that ;)
Fair enough :)
If you start refactoring theses events it would be a good idea to also: - move them to bridge module (we can't move them to model module since theses events still send XWikiContext and XWikiDocument) - refactor them to be based on references instead of strings
OK.
One more question : are you guys OK to maintain compatibility for the events to be deprecated in an aspect ?
(+1 from me)
Aspect I don't know but we need to have something listening to new events and generating old events (not sure what is doable with an aspect).
Also I think old events and bridge I described should be moved in some "xwiki-legacy" module or something like that to clean up observation module.
Old events OK, but new bridge events should rather go in bridge module no ?
Or am I misunderstanding something ?
What I called "bridge" here is the component listening to new events and generating old events. This component should go in "xwiki-legacy" since it only make sense if you have old events. As I said new events should go in core-bridge module.
Jerome.
That way components already built will work inside XWiki but will need to be refactored when core dependency is upgraded.
Jerome.
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
OK makes sense now. I'll investigate that bridge. Should be possible with an aspect I think (you can define pointcuts that catches constructor calls with aspectj) - but maybe that's not the best solution. Jerome. On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:24, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:03, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 15:20, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
This is a buy one, get two proposal.
I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply to the naming rules we've agreed on (see http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of two new ones.
Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as the preverify method in old XWiki.java.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do). _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-0 if you do only that ;)
Fair enough :)
If you start refactoring theses events it would be a good idea to also: - move them to bridge module (we can't move them to model module since theses events still send XWikiContext and XWikiDocument) - refactor them to be based on references instead of strings
OK.
One more question : are you guys OK to maintain compatibility for the events to be deprecated in an aspect ?
(+1 from me)
Aspect I don't know but we need to have something listening to new events and generating old events (not sure what is doable with an aspect).
Also I think old events and bridge I described should be moved in some "xwiki-legacy" module or something like that to clean up observation module.
Old events OK, but new bridge events should rather go in bridge module no ?
Or am I misunderstanding something ?
What I called "bridge" here is the component listening to new events and generating old events. This component should go in "xwiki-legacy" since it only make sense if you have old events.
As I said new events should go in core-bridge module.
Jerome.
That way components already built will work inside XWiki but will need to be refactored when core dependency is upgraded.
Jerome.
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:02, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
OK makes sense now.
I'll investigate that bridge. Should be possible with an aspect I think (you can define pointcuts that catches constructor calls with aspectj) - but maybe that's not the best solution.
My POV is that if we have a separated xwiki-legacy module there is no need to do an aspect, it's a lot easier to simply write a java component.
Jerome.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:24, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:03, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 15:20, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi devs, > > This is a buy one, get two proposal. > > I propose that first we rename DocumentUpdateEvent and > DocumentSaveEvent to respectively DocumentUpdatedEvent and > DocumentCreatedEvent. Which would be both more clear and would comply > to the naming rules we've agreed on (see > http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/frzfzookl2lstsfj ). By rename I don't > mean real rename, but deprecation of the old events and creation of > two new ones. > > Then I propose we introduce two new events : DocumentCreatingEvent and > DocumentUpdatingEvent, that would be fired before the actual save. > This is a pretty common use case for code that needs to hook on save > to perform any kind of verification/pre-computation/etc. This is the > same idea as the "preverify" method of the legacy notification > mechanism. The events would actually be fired from the same place as > the preverify method in old XWiki.java. > > WDYT ? > > I'm +1 and if we agree I volunteer to make those changes on 3.0 branch > - and maybe the 2.7 too if we agree we want that too (I do). > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >
-0 if you do only that ;)
Fair enough :)
If you start refactoring theses events it would be a good idea to also: - move them to bridge module (we can't move them to model module since theses events still send XWikiContext and XWikiDocument) - refactor them to be based on references instead of strings
OK.
One more question : are you guys OK to maintain compatibility for the events to be deprecated in an aspect ?
(+1 from me)
Aspect I don't know but we need to have something listening to new events and generating old events (not sure what is doable with an aspect).
Also I think old events and bridge I described should be moved in some "xwiki-legacy" module or something like that to clean up observation module.
Old events OK, but new bridge events should rather go in bridge module no ?
Or am I misunderstanding something ?
What I called "bridge" here is the component listening to new events and generating old events. This component should go in "xwiki-legacy" since it only make sense if you have old events.
As I said new events should go in core-bridge module.
Jerome.
That way components already built will work inside XWiki but will need to be refactored when core dependency is upgraded.
Jerome.
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
participants (4)
-
Jerome Velociter -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne