My main concern: does this advance our graduation?
Others inline.
On 25 Sep 2009, at 20:54, Andrew Jaquith wrote:
The "inspect" package provides facilities that allow content to be
inspected and scored based on various criteria such as whether a wiki
page change contains spam. Content may be scored by initializing an
Inspection object and then calling the {...@link Inspection#inspect()}
method. The {...@code inspect} method, in turn, iterates through a
variety of previously-configured {...@link Inspector} objects and calls
the {...@link Inspector#inspect(String,String)} method for each one.
Each
of the configured inspectors is free to perform whatever evaluations
it wishes, and can increase, decrease or reset the "scores" for any
score category, for example the {...@link Score#SPAM} category.
Ok.
* Score objects supply instructions to the parent Inspection object
to
increment, decrement or reset the score for a particular category.
Each Score object is constructed with a category (for example,
Score.SPAM), an integer indicating how much to change the score, and
an optional String message that provides context for the change. For
example, a Score that increments the spam score by 1 could be
constructed by new Score( Score.SPAM, 1, "Bot detected." ). Negative
numbers can be supplied also to decrease the score. For convenience,
{...@link Score#INCREMENT_SCORE} means "add 1", {...@link
Score#DECREMENT_SCORE} means "subtract 1", and {...@link Score#RESET}
means "reset to zero."
Smells of overdesign to me. Creating a new operation and
methodology to support addition sounds like a bad idea. Not to
mention the fact that you might actually want to use fractions.
Something like inspection.changeScore( Score.SPAM, 0.5f ) sounds
more appealing to me.
public String preSave( WikiContext context, String content ) throws
RedirectException
{
Change change = getChange( context, content );
// Run the Inspection
Inspection inspection = new Inspection( context, m_config,
m_inspectors );
inspection.addLimit( Score.SPAM, m_scoreLimit );
inspection.inspect( content, change );
int spamScore = inspection.getScore( Score.SPAM );
context.setVariable( ATTR_SPAMFILTER_SCORE, spamScore );
// Redirect user if score too high
if( inspection.isFailed() )
{
...
}
...
}
Yes, this looks unnecessarily complicated and limiting to me. I
would remove automatic limit-rating altogether, and would just
concentrate on refactoring the individual methods from SpamFilter
into the inspect-package with a light wrapper around them. I think
a callback design is better than adding quite limited limit thingies
anyway, as this gives full programmatic control to the developer
without us having to pre-guess the possible limitations.
E.g. inspection.inspect( content, change, new
InspectionResultListener() {
public boolean visit(Inspection ins)
{
// Any possible decision code goes here
return ins.getScore() > m_maxScore;
}
});
Obviously, these listeners would be optional, and you could just let
the entire chain run without interference. And for simplicity, we
can provide some default listeners, e.g.
inspection.inspect( content, change, new StopAtScoreListener
( Score.SPAM, 5 ) );
(Yeah, I'm a big fan of this pattern 'cos it gives much more control
to the developer and eases debugging immensely.)
ChangeRateInspector, LinkCountInspector, SpamInspector (for Akismet),
This should obviously be called AkismetInspector; all the others
detect spammers too (and Akismet is probably the worst of the lot
anyway).
/Janne
