I try to sum up the discussion and reply to some arguments:
2010/6/13 Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>om>:
1) iw_trans - I don't think this needs to become
more than a
boolean like it is. If we allow transwiki inclusion, we'll have
to use a DB or API connection. Since a DB connection will
always be preferable to an HTTP request to the API, it would
be safe to use the existence of a db name as an indicator to
use it, else fall back to the API.
I can keep iw_trans as a boolean, but I thought it would be a good
idea to use it as a "selector"
* 0 -> no interwiki transclusion
* 1 -> transclusion by API
* 2 -> transclusion by direct DB access through LBFactory
as it is possible to add new kinds of transclusion later (eg. 3 ->
transclusion by DB file access, in case of a SQLite DB, etc.)
2010/6/13 Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>om>:
2) iw_dbname / iw_api - You could probably combine
these into
one column. It could store a value like "dbname=abc;api=http://foo.com/etc"
which would be loaded and split when the Interwiki object is
constructed.
I agree that it is possible, but I don't see the advantages of doing so...
2010/6/14 Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com>om>:
Do we need *both* values?
It could simply contain
http://foo.com/etc (API) or
mysql://localhost:3306/abc (dbname)
I don't need both values for the function I'm writing, but as Chad
said, he suggested to add this kind of fields some time ago, so, I
suppose both fields can be useful for different purposes.
By the way, this is related to
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20646
2010/6/16 Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com>om>:
I somewhat didn't jump here, as we simply
don't use interwiki table on
WMF sites, so the topic was out of interest. :)
If we want to enable interwiki transclusion on WMF wikis using the
code I'm writing, we'll need to use the interwiki table on those
wikis... And we'll need to start a discussion about the interwiki
prefixes to use.
--
Peter Potrowl
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17