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