On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjor...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Krinkle <krinklem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [1] If one would allow page style modules to have dependencies and > resolve > > them server-side in the HTML output, this would cause corruption when the > > relationship between two modules changes as existing pages would have the > > old relationship cached but do get the latest content from the server. > > Adding versions wouldn't help since the server can't feasibly have access > > to previous versions (too many page/skin/language combinations). > > > > But don't we have the corruption anyway? Say page Foo has a page style > module 'foo', so it calls addModuleStyles( [ 'foo' ] ). Then module 'foo' > is changed so it also needs 'bar', so page Foo now has to call > addModuleStyles( [ 'foo', 'bar' ] ). What is avoided there that isn't > avoided when addModuleStyles( [ 'foo' ] ) is smart enough to internally see > that 'foo' depends on 'bar' and act as if it were passed [ 'foo', 'bar' ]? > Or what case am I missing? > > On the other hand, dependencies avoid the case where the developer > modifying 'foo' doesn't realize that he has to search for everything > everywhere that passes 'foo' to addModuleStyles() and manually add 'bar' to > each one. > Hmmmm... wait, does load.php not resolve dependencies server-side when producing concatenated CSS output? That would seem to break the transitional model I proposed if so. Ah, fun. :) -- brion _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
