On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm changing my vote to -0 for BlockList FTM since I've just realized there >> might a problem. >> >> BlockList means that it's a list of block. But this is not what it is… >> >> It's a Block like any other block. The important part is not that it's a >> list of blocks, all our blocks are list of blocks. >> >> The important part is that it can be used to hold one or several blocks. > > More precisely, compared to the other existing block this is a type of block > that add no additional metadata. > > It's a no op block basically. > > The fact that it's a list of Block is a feature of all blocks so this one > doesn't need to mention that explicitly I think. > > ATM I prefer CompositeBlock than BlockList which I find a bit misleading. > > NoOpBlock would be ok too I guess but I don't like it too much. > > I'm very close to -1 for BlockList.
I'm OK with CompositeBlock. I don't have much more argument than "BlockList sounds nicer" so for now you win. > > Since it's a block its name must end by Block and the prefix should qualify > the type of block it is. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > PS: NodeList doesn't implement Node. > >> >> -Vincent >> >> On Oct 1, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi devs, >>>> >>>> In many APIs we sometime want to manipulate several Block but we don't >>>> want to put them in a meaningful Block like XDOM which is supposed to >>>> mean a full document. Right now the only way to do it is to have both >>>> an API with Block and another with Collection<Block> but it's a bit >>>> more annoying for return type where you are forced to return a >>>> List<Block> even if you are in a case where you actually have only one >>>> Block to return like in macros for example. >>>> >>>> We talked a long time ago with Vincent about a BlockCollection which >>>> would not have any meaning (i.e. no corresponding event in the stream >>>> rendering API) and would just be here to be able to pass several >>>> blocks as a Block. >>>> >>>> Since UI extension is going to use it a lot I propose to introduce it now. >>>> >>>> WDYT ? >>>> >>>> Any better idea for the name ? >>>> >>>> Here is my +1. >>> >>> I'm +1 with the idea. >>> >>> I'm ok with BlockList (hoping that people will not confuse BlockList with >>> ListBlock ;)). >>> >>> Another possibility is to use a name that reflects what it is, i.e. a >>> composite pattern (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_pattern) and >>> call it: CompositeBlock >>> >>> I'm also ok for that since we've used that naming in several other places. >>> >>> So to summarize: >>> >>> +0 BlockCollection >>> +1 ListBlock >>> +1 CompositeBlock >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
