--
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [
http://daniel.friesen.name]
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:19:25 -0700, Tyler Romeo
tylerromeo@gmail.com
wrote:
> This is not a good idea. We should wait until the ContentHandler branch
> is
> fully QAd and we are sure it will not be reverted before converting
> extensions over to using it.
>
> *--*
> *Tyler Romeo*
> Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
> Major in Computer Science
> www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Daniel Friesen
> <daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com
>> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:37:47 -0700, Rob Lanphier
robla@wikimedia.org
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Daniel Kinzler
daniel@brightbyte.de
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since the ContentHandler stuff has been merged into the core, several
>>>> much-used
>>>> functions and hooks have been deprecated. I have tried to find and
>>>> replace all
>>>> calls in core, but a lot of extensions are still using the old stuff.
>>>> They will
>>>> still work for all text-based content, but will generate a ton of
>>>> warnings, and
>>>> will fail tests (and make core tests fail).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm very worried about converting all of the extensions to use new
>>> APIs now. If it turns out we need to revert ContentHandler, this will
>>> make the revert that much more difficult.
>>>
>>> I'd rather we remove deprecation warnings for the newly deprecated
>>> APIs.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>
>> So use a conditional to check for the contenthandler classses/methods.
>>
>> --
>> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [
http://daniel.friesen.name]