2010/5/25 Platonides <platoni...@gmail.com>:>
> Seems it doesn't work so well. It was inadvertedly broken for wikitext
> transclusions when the interwiki points to the nice url. See
> 'wgEnableScaryTranscluding and Templates/Images?' thread at mediawiki-l
>
Well, in my tests, images are well included because I enabled
$wgUseInstantCommons. As I wrote, "the parameters are totally
ignored": they are indeed not substituted.
2010/5/25 Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 7:42 PM, church.of.emacs.ml
> <church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 1. You propose a shared database. If I interpret this correctly, it only
>> works inside a wiki set on the same server farm and doesn't include
>> external wikis. For example, English Wikipedia could transclude
>> templates from Meta Wiki, but not from Wikia. In contrast,
>> $wgForeignFileRepos works for external Wikis (which is much better).
>>
>
> If it's done right, you should be able to put various backends
> on it just like the FileRepo code. Bug 20646 is a good start
> to something like this I think. Being able to store API urls or
> database connection info inside a iw_meta field would be
> awesome for this (and has lots of other applications as well).
>
> -Chad
Yes. The shared database would be only for invalidating the cache when
a template is edited. In my 3rd (preferred) solution, the templates
are still fetched through the API. External wikis can transclude them
and cache them for an arbitrary time, as ForeignAPIRepo does.
2010/5/25 church.of.emacs.ml <church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com>:
>
> 2. Parsing the wikitext at the home wiki makes it more difficult to use
> site magic words, e.g. {{CONTENTLANGUAGE}}. You'd have to pass one each
> and everyone as a template parameter (e.g.
> {{homewiki::templatename|lang={{CONTENTLANGUAGE}}}})
>
Ok, I will keep this in mind. Parsing the template on the home wiki
seems necessary because it can use other templates hosted on that wiki
to render correctly... I think it is the most logical way to do, isn't
it?
2010/5/25 Aryeh Gregor <simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Q <overlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would have to suggest to not go the shared database route unless the
>> code can be fixed so that shared databases actually work with all of the
>> DB backends.
>
> I don't see why it shouldn't be easy to get it working with all DB
> backends. But in any case, for Wikimedia use, a shared database
> backend is pretty much a must. Having the application servers make
> HTTP requests to each other to retrieve templates rather than
> accessing the database directly is just silly, and is going to perform
> badly. Ideally the code should generalize to work with external wikis
> too, so that third parties can benefit from our templates as they do
> from our images. Maybe someday, a copy-pasted Wikipedia article will
> actually work . . . I can dream.
Mmmh.... sorry, I'm not really sure I understand... My suggestion is
to use a shared database that would store the remote calls, not the
content of the pages... In my mind, fetching the distant pages would
be done through the API, not by accessing directly the distant
database. The external wikis will soon be able to access our images
very easily with wgUseInstantCommons but it is still not an access to
the database...
Thanks for your remarks.
About the question from Alex about transcluding sections: is it
possible to request only a section through the API? I searched about
this but didn't find :(
--
Peter Potrowl
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
