daniel added a comment.
In https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T107595#2266131, @GWicke wrote: > Basically, if we don't have a way to provide this key information to the backend store, then we can't access all the multi-content revision data that's already out there through this interface. I agree we should find an appropriate abstraction that allows us to use the information that is already available via RESTbase. It seems to me that this would be an abstraction layer on the level on slots, between RevisionBuilder and BlobStore. it seems pretty clear to me that the BlobStore interface doesn't fit: it represents something more low level than what RESTbase is currently used for. We should keep this in mind, but perhaps we can postpone the details until we implement derived (dynamic) slots. We will want those to be purely programmatic, and not to be forced to rely on slot entries in the database. The `RevisionContentLookup` interface from the original proposal would be the reading side of this. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T107595 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: daniel Cc: Glaisher, JJMC89, RobLa-WMF, Yurik, ArielGlenn, APerson, TomT0m, Krenair, intracer, Tgr, Tobi_WMDE_SW, Addshore, Lydia_Pintscher, cscott, PleaseStand, awight, Ricordisamoa, GWicke, MarkTraceur, waldyrious, Legoktm, Aklapper, Jdforrester-WMF, Ltrlg, brion, Spage, MZMcBride, daniel, D3r1ck01, Izno, Luke081515, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, fbstj, Mbch331, Jay8g, bd808 _______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
