Simetrical wrote:
On the flip side of that, you can't just stick something like check usage up on the main servers without review by the people who are collectively available 24/7 to maintain those servers and the software running on them. Toolserver stuff is not centrally reviewed for security or performance issues, and the core devs/sysadmins are probably not familiar with how it works. It also tends to be somewhat tacked-on, and would be better if integrated properly into MediaWiki.
So I think the distinction between "carefully-maintained, high-availability software" and "toolserver stuff" will remain to some extent, and the goal needs to be to move the most valuable stuff to extensions or even core and run it on the main servers. But those are just my thoughts.
Aye, but the "carefully maintaned" stable toolserver tools should be efficient, too (if the task can be efficiently done, of course, the criteria for inclusion would be greater).
In fact, i'm for rewriting some of these tools in the moving. Why? Current tools are one man's work. They work, but can be a bit {{esoteric}}, with hacks added on backend changes and only the author fully knows it. By rewriting them between all the maintaners, they all know the baby since birth. It's easier knowing a check-usage when you have seen the functions grow from one sql query, than starting with a teenager.
Also, the peer reviewing of every check-in should push for more efficient and modular code. Plus, the new tools would have a clear license (toolserver scripts are required to have a free license, but it's not clear for all under which they're, rewriting fixes it). That said, doesn't mean you can't view or even copy code from previous tool. In the end, it's up to the team.
Opinions?