So basically instead of passing Language to MWTimestamp you want to pass MWTimestamp to Language. IMHO it's fine with me, so long as the logic is properly separated. In the end, all this would require is the addition of MWTimestamp::diff (or since) and MWTimstamp::userAdjust, which Language would call in order to get the proper timestamps.
I can work on a patch for this now. *--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerromeo@gmail.com wrote:
The proper implementation would be to separate the timestamp logic (calculating how long ago, adjusting based on user timezone preferences, etc.) and the language logic (getting messages for the day of the week, formatting the date and time, actually making the message).
Then, have MWTimestamp process the timestamp and then pass the data onto Language to do the formatting. That way it happens transparently.
If you're passing the output of MWTimestamp to Language, it's not transparent. If you want to do it transparently, you have to keep the accessor in MWTimestamp and pass a Language object (which I've already argued against).
I see no harm in using MWTimestamp in Language, but please let's not do it the other way around.
-Chad
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l