wfRunHooks deprecation - Wikitech-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

wfRunHooks deprecation

Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: No more...

Wikidata betalabs

Jeroen De Dauw

21 Jan 2015 21 Jan '15

12:19 a.m.

Hey, I just noticed wfRunHooks got deprecated. The hook mechanism is heavily depended on by extensions. So if it is going away, what will it be replaced by? There is no hint of this in the method doc. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3

Reply

Show replies by thread

Chad

21 Jan 21 Jan

12:21 a.m.

On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 4:20:47 PM Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hey, I just noticed wfRunHooks got deprecated. The hook mechanism is heavily depended on by extensions. So if it is going away, what will it be replaced by? There is no hint of this in the method doc.

Hooks::run(). -Chad

Reply

Daniel Friesen

12:26 a.m.

On 2015-01-20 4:21 PM, Chad wrote:

On Tue Jan 20 2015 at 4:20:47 PM Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hey, I just noticed wfRunHooks got deprecated. The hook mechanism is heavily depended on by extensions. So if it is going away, what will it be replaced by? There is no hint of this in the method doc.

Hooks::run(). -Chad

Heh, yay. To bad we're not deprecating $wgHooks -> Hooks::register. I've had ideas that are impossible to do with $wgHooks. ((IIRC it was something about storing a light stack in debug mode of where Hooks::register is called so hook related errors, deprecation notices, etc... (or it might have been for a different kind of error) can actually tell you where the hook was registered)) ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]

Reply

Jeroen De Dauw

12:31 a.m.

Hey,

Hooks::run()

Oh, in that case there is not much to worry about. Added a note in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/186115/1/includes/GlobalFunctions.php Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3

Reply

Gergo Tisza

4:34 a.m.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I just noticed wfRunHooks got deprecated. The hook mechanism is heavily depended on by extensions. So if it is going away, what will it be

replaced

by? There is no hint of this in the method doc.

Hooks::run().

Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one? Assuming that we want to switch to non-static function calls eventually (which I hope is the case), wouldn't it be friendlier towards extension maintainers to only deprecate once we are there, instead of forcing them to update twice?

Reply

Jeroen De Dauw

5:39 p.m.

Hey, Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?

Assuming that we want to switch to non-static function calls eventually (which I hope is the case), wouldn't it be friendlier towards extension maintainers to only deprecate once we are there, instead of forcing them to update twice?

Good points and questions. While this deprecation is not as problematic as simply ditching the current hook system altogether, it does indeed seem a bit of busy work. The Hooks class has this comment "Used to supersede $wgHooks, because globals are EVIL.", which is quite amusing if you consider all fields and methods are static. So it's a switch from a global var to a global field, thus adding a second global to get rid of the first one. I have this presentation on static code which has a screenshot of this comment and class in it :) Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3

Reply

Brian Wolff

9:51 p.m.

On Jan 21, 2015 1:40 PM, "Jeroen De Dauw" <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hey, Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one? > Assuming that we want to switch to non-static function calls eventually > (which I hope is the case), wouldn't it be friendlier towards extension > maintainers to only deprecate once we are there, instead of forcing

them to

update twice?

Good points and questions. While this deprecation is not as problematic as simply ditching the current hook system altogether, it does indeed seem a bit of busy work. The Hooks class has this comment "Used to supersede $wgHooks, because globals are EVIL.", which is quite amusing if you consider all fields and methods are static. So it's a switch from a global var to a global field, thus adding a second global to get rid of the first one. I have this presentation on static code which has a screenshot of this comment and class in it :) Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3

Ill be honest i dont understand the point of deprecating that. As you say the evil globalness is the same amount of evil regardless of the type of global symbol. And really i dont think global hooks causes too many problems. --bawolff

Reply

Dmitriy Sintsov

22 Jan 22 Jan

6:13 a.m.

They probably could turn that global class into "facade" - compact form of IoC container Laravel framework uses. Dmitriy On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 21, 2015 1:40 PM, "Jeroen De Dauw" <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hey, Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one? > Assuming that we want to switch to non-static function calls eventually > (which I hope is the case), wouldn't it be friendlier towards extension > maintainers to only deprecate once we are there, instead of forcing

them to

update twice?

Good points and questions. While this deprecation is not as problematic

as

simply ditching the current hook system altogether, it does indeed seem a bit of busy work. The Hooks class has this comment "Used to supersede $wgHooks, because globals are EVIL.", which is quite amusing if you consider all fields and methods are static. So it's a switch from a global var to a global field, thus adding a second global to get rid of the first one. I have this presentation on static code which has a screenshot of this comment and class in it :) Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3

Ill be honest i dont understand the point of deprecating that. As you say the evil globalness is the same amount of evil regardless of the type of global symbol. And really i dont think global hooks causes too many problems. --bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply

Legoktm

6:35 p.m.

On 01/21/2015 09:39 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:

Hey, Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?

It's a little bit faster by cutting down one function call which adds up when a lot of hooks are called. -- Legoktm

Reply

Mark A. Hershberger

8:57 p.m.

Legoktm <legoktm.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> writes:

On 01/21/2015 09:39 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:

Hey, Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?

It's a little bit faster by cutting down one function call which adds up when a lot of hooks are called.

"adds up" is a poor defense for creating work for end users and developers. Has anyone actually measured what the difference is or is this just an example of premature optimization[1]? Mark. Footnotes: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization#When_to_optimize -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 717-271-1084

Reply

Bryan Davis

9:10 p.m.

On Thursday, January 22, 2015, Mark A. Hershberger <mah(a)nichework.com> wrote:

Legoktm <legoktm.wikipedia(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes:

On 01/21/2015 09:39 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:

Hey, Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one?

It's a little bit faster by cutting down one function call which adds up when a lot of hooks are called.

"adds up" is a poor defense for creating work for end users and developers. Has anyone actually measured what the difference is or is this just an example of premature optimization[1]? Mark. Footnotes: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization#When_to_optimize I don't have before/after measurements but Aaron started changing from

wfRunHooks to direct Hook calls based on data gathered from WMF production profiling. There was a non-trivial performance impact of the additional layer of indirection. Bryan -- Bryan Davis Wikimedia Foundation <bd808(a)wikimedia.org> [[m:User:BDavis_(WMF)]] Sr Software Engineer Boise, ID USA irc: bd808 v:415.839.6885 x6855

Reply

Chad

9:13 p.m.

On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 1:10:27 PM Bryan Davis <bd808(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

On Thursday, January 22, 2015, Mark A. Hershberger <mah(a)nichework.com> wrote:

Legoktm <legoktm.wikipedia(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes: > On 01/21/2015 09:39 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote: >> Hey, >> >> Does the new syntax offer any advantage over the old one? > > It's a little bit faster by cutting down one function call which adds

up

when a lot of hooks are called.

"adds up" is a poor defense for creating work for end users and developers. Has anyone actually measured what the difference is or is this just an example of premature optimization[1]? Mark. Footnotes: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization#When_to_optimize I don't have before/after measurements but Aaron started changing from

wfRunHooks to direct Hook calls based on data gathered from WMF production profiling. There was a non-trivial performance impact of the additional layer of indirection.

Sure, but obvious performance gains are obvious. The real question to me is "was moving it into a static function inside of Hooks a benefit over it just being a global function?" My guess is no, not really. -Chad

Reply

3393

days inactive

3394

days old

wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

11 comments

9 participants

tags (0)

participants (9)

Brian Wolff
Bryan Davis
Chad
Daniel Friesen
Dmitriy Sintsov
Gergo Tisza
Jeroen De Dauw
Legoktm
Mark A. Hershberger