Ben: yeah, there's a Google Group for it, at http://groups.google.com/group/semantic-forms.
Thinking it over again, maybe that nine or ten arguments really is necessary after all. In the most extreme case, you could have one extension that turns different broken links different colors, another that redirects mis-capitalized links, and another that handles a custom value in the link's query string, and you would want them all to work together. Let me think about this, and I'll come back with another proposal.
-Yaron
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Ben chuwiey@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a side note: Yaron, is there some forum or mailing list for Semantic Forms?
--Wiredtape
Ben wrote:
I would like to say thank you for adding going through this as well :)
regarding jimbojw's words:
I would agree it could be nice to have case-diff links be known link objects, however, though I can't think of an example atm, I'm sure there are articles with the same name but different cases - and then it becomes a problem of trying to understand which is the one the user meant. Places like search, where TitleKey makes a lot of sense, let the user make a conscious choice by showing him all of the options.
--Wiredtape
Jim Wilson wrote:
Thanks Yaron for taking on the task of adding this hook :)
One use case could be for integration with something like Brion's TitleKey extension, so if the title already exists, but with a different capitalization, a known link obj could be generated rather than a broken link obj.
Say for example you're using TitleKey with an additional ArticleFromTitle hook to automatically resolve case differences (perhaps by 301 redirecting), and the article "WiMAX" already exists. When someone links to [[wimax]] - it would be nice to be able to show that as a known link obj.
-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Yaron Koren yaron57@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, wow - 10 parameters for the hook function? Somehow that seems like overkill, though I don't know what exactly could be removed from that
list.
Would the call to wfRunHooks() be placed before or after the line
that sets
the actual link ($s)? If it comes afterwards, passing in the
variables of
$style and $inside might not be necessary, since those are just
helper
variables that are used to create the link. Maybe it's also better to
not
have makeBrokenLinkObj() override the values of $text and $trail, and instead use new variables for those, so that the original values
could be
passed in without problems (and the new variables could similarly be ignored).
-Yaron
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Simetrical <
Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Yaron Koren yaron57@gmail.com
wrote:
Okay, that makes sense - there's probably no reason to allow
more than
one
hook to override the output. The one downside of this approach
that I
can
see is that functions that don't override the output might not
get
called at
all, if they're later in the array than a function that does
override
it. I
don't think that's a big deal, since I can't imagine some large
amount
of
custom code called for every broken link, or two extensions
"collaborating"
on creating a new link. Unless anyone objects, I'll go with your
suggestion.
Putting it at the bottom with more parameters seems like a better idea, on second thought. I'd still permit hooks to return false
and
alter some $ret variable to totally change things if they wanted,
but
exposing the parameters $u, $style, $prefix, the modified $text, $inside, and $trail (as well as $nt, $query, and the unmodified
$text,
for reference) could allow some extensions to coexist peacefully.
If
there's a conflict there's a conflict, of course, but we may as
well
try to avoid that a bit more.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l