Hi everyone,
Yesterday on IRC, I suggested that I should start checking in the safer portions of the extensionless-files branch, so as to make the eventual merge of the feature easier. Tim suggested that I put together a design doc and post that here for wider review first.
Here's the design doc: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Extensionless_files
The branch with the code in it is here: http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Code/MediaWiki/path&p...
Ongoing discussion on this topic is in Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4421
Rob
This is interesting. I'm going to look more into what you've been doing over the weekend. But in the meantime I have a related question.
I've been working (quietly) on Multimedia Usability, and one major issue with the whole design of multimedia on mediawiki, IMO, is the unity of storage filename, URL, and title.
Since you've gone halfway there, how hard would it be to break these dependencies entirely?
Also, I want a pony.
On 04/01/2010 06:37 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Hi everyone,
Yesterday on IRC, I suggested that I should start checking in the safer portions of the extensionless-files branch, so as to make the eventual merge of the feature easier. Tim suggested that I put together a design doc and post that here for wider review first.
Here's the design doc: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Extensionless_files
The branch with the code in it is here: http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Code/MediaWiki/path&p...
Ongoing discussion on this topic is in Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4421
Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.orgwrote:
This is interesting. I'm going to look more into what you've been doing over the weekend. But in the meantime I have a related question.
I've been working (quietly) on Multimedia Usability, and one major issue with the whole design of multimedia on mediawiki, IMO, is the unity of storage filename, URL, and title.
Since you've gone halfway there, how hard would it be to break these dependencies entirely?
This work is definitely a step in that direction, and probably not too much more dev work to go all of the way. The test/bugfix cycle is what worries me the most, for reasons that probably are the same for any feature in this area.
Decoupling the filename from the URL/Title would involve not only storing file extensions in the database, but full filenames, which would result in a few more megabytes of database space on commons. There's been quite a bit of debate in Bugzilla since yesterday about the database modifications and the merits of the feature generally: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4421#c51
Also, I want a pony.
Not before I get my unicorn.
Rob
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@robla.net wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.orgwrote:
This is interesting. I'm going to look more into what you've been doing over the weekend. But in the meantime I have a related question.
I've been working (quietly) on Multimedia Usability, and one major issue with the whole design of multimedia on mediawiki, IMO, is the unity of storage filename, URL, and title.
Since you've gone halfway there, how hard would it be to break these dependencies entirely?
This work is definitely a step in that direction, and probably not too much more dev work to go all of the way. The test/bugfix cycle is what worries me the most, for reasons that probably are the same for any feature in this area.
Luckily the FileRepo code isn't nearly as scary as the Parser, and I have a pretty good grasp of it. I haven't reviewed the patches in question, but I can do so. I really don't want us to jump into this too quickly and find out we've made a bad decision...so let's slow it down a few notches :p
I know the patch/review process can be a bit trying at times, especially when you hear no feedback. I've been asked before what it takes to get a bug/patch/branch reviewed and if I've learned nothing in the past few years it's this: persistence. You have to drive your change and see it through. Posting a bug (sadly) isn't usually enough to get the right people's attention. Maybe it's a lack of resources, Bugzilla sucking, who knows. Anyway...
Decoupling the filename from the URL/Title would involve not only storing file extensions in the database, but full filenames, which would result in a few more megabytes of database space on commons. There's been quite a bit of debate in Bugzilla since yesterday about the database modifications and the merits of the feature generally: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4421#c51
It would also open up the possibility of storing uploads in the database, also a long-standing feature request for third parties[0]. I don't really agree with stripping the file extensions necessarily (I've said my share on the bug), but I do agree that decoupling URL/Title/Filename (at least separate the filename/path) would be a good direction to go in the long term.
Also, I want a pony.
Not before I get my unicorn.
I took the liberty of opening an enhancement request for Neal's pony (which I would also like), but Aryeh pointed out that we might be facing some legal and logistical issues in doing so.
-Chad
[0] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/363 [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/23029
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org