On 03/26/2012 04:39 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:

Hi devs,

I see that we keep adding stuff regularly to oldcore and the reason is "my code depends on oldcore so I cannot depend on oldcore in new modules".

First, this is not completely true. We have several modules that already depend on oldcore.

Also we cannot wait indefinitely that the new model magically appears (that won't happen… :)).

I think it's fine to depend on oldcore when a new module requires to use the model and when the bridge (DAB) is not enough. However we need to be careful about one thing: that oldcore itself doesn't use that new module. So sometimes it will mean extracting stuff from oldcore into a separate module so that it can use the other new module ;)

Personally I now think we need to continue splitting oldcore and it's more important that we create new modules for specific domains, even if they use old code and even if they use the com.xpn namespace when moving oldcode) than keep everything as it is and make oldcore grow fatter…

Of course sometimes it may just be too complex but at least we should consider it and when possible create new modules depending on oldcore.

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

Totally agree, +1. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:39, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi devs,

I see that we keep adding stuff regularly to oldcore and the reason is "my code depends on oldcore so I cannot depend on oldcore in new modules".

First, this is not completely true. We have several modules that already depend on oldcore.

Also we cannot wait indefinitely that the new model magically appears (that won't happen… :)).

I think it's fine to depend on oldcore when a new module requires to use the model and when the bridge (DAB) is not enough. However we need to be careful about one thing: that oldcore itself doesn't use that new module. So sometimes it will mean extracting stuff from oldcore into a separate module so that it can use the other new module ;)

Personally I now think we need to continue splitting oldcore and it's more important that we create new modules for specific domains, even if they use old code and even if they use the com.xpn namespace when moving oldcode) than keep everything as it is and make oldcore grow fatter…

Of course sometimes it may just be too complex but at least we should consider it and when possible create new modules depending on oldcore.

WDYT?

Big +1 on this. IMO, if you depends on oldcore for something larger than the bridge (which IMO has grown too much), you may have in your module a bridge submodule to isolate your oldcore dependency. This bridge submodule will simply provide some internal bridge components. This allow your new module to be itself independent from oldcore and it encourage isolation of problematic part. If you want an illustration of this, you may have a look at the xwiki-security-authorization-bridge module that will soon be merged on master.

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO

+1 On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi devs,

I see that we keep adding stuff regularly to oldcore and the reason is "my code depends on oldcore so I cannot depend on oldcore in new modules".

First, this is not completely true. We have several modules that already depend on oldcore.

Also we cannot wait indefinitely that the new model magically appears (that won't happen… :)).

I think it's fine to depend on oldcore when a new module requires to use the model and when the bridge (DAB) is not enough. However we need to be careful about one thing: that oldcore itself doesn't use that new module. So sometimes it will mean extracting stuff from oldcore into a separate module so that it can use the other new module ;)

Personally I now think we need to continue splitting oldcore and it's more important that we create new modules for specific domains, even if they use old code and even if they use the com.xpn namespace when moving oldcode) than keep everything as it is and make oldcore grow fatter…

Of course sometimes it may just be too complex but at least we should consider it and when possible create new modules depending on oldcore.

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Thomas Mortagne

+1 Best Regards, /Andreas 2012-03-26 10:39, Vincent Massol skrev:

Hi devs,

I see that we keep adding stuff regularly to oldcore and the reason is "my code depends on oldcore so I cannot depend on oldcore in new modules".

First, this is not completely true. We have several modules that already depend on oldcore.

Also we cannot wait indefinitely that the new model magically appears (that won't happen… :)).

I think it's fine to depend on oldcore when a new module requires to use the model and when the bridge (DAB) is not enough. However we need to be careful about one thing: that oldcore itself doesn't use that new module. So sometimes it will mean extracting stuff from oldcore into a separate module so that it can use the other new module ;)

Personally I now think we need to continue splitting oldcore and it's more important that we create new modules for specific domains, even if they use old code and even if they use the com.xpn namespace when moving oldcode) than keep everything as it is and make oldcore grow fatter…

Of course sometimes it may just be too complex but at least we should consider it and when possible create new modules depending on oldcore.

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs