I do not think, design-wise, this is a good idea. In addition to what Tim said, extensions would become needlessly complex if we started accounting for every possible MediaWiki feature that's added in a given release. *--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 12/10/12 04:03, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
I think instead of using individual constant, we should finally introduce a Capabilities class.
It should have a single static method, has(), which indicates whether a certain capability is registered within the system. At the beginning, capabilities will be listed as static members of that class, but we may do something more clever at the future.
I would also suggest that we introduce a policy of adding a capability for any new hook we add. Or we could parse docs/hooks.txt in order to avoid duplication (probably moving it somewhere).
Finally, backporting that interface into previous versions of MediaWiki might be a good idea.
Then you would have to load a capability map with potentially hundreds of entries at registration time, despite the fact that on most requests, most of the hooks will never be called. It seems inefficient to me. At least with the current system, the number of support constants is small (4-5).
-- Tim Starling
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l