On 12 February 2012 15:29, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hey,
On 12 February 2012 15:52, Happy Melon
<happy.melon.wiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Eg?
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Jeroen_De_Dauw/DBDataObject
I had just twigged myself that that was what you were refering to. That's
not really a good example of an "isolated" utility; I would interpret such
a thing to be something that core genuinely doesn't *need*, not just
something it doesn't *currently* use. Although retro-engineering that
framework into our core data classes would be an absolute bitch, if we were
rewriting MW from scratch we would most likely use such an abstraction from
the start, and there's no reason not to do so with new core features if
practical. Except, of course, the issue with PHP dependencies.
Essentially, the "isolation" of this utility is a product of its dependency
flexibility, *not* the other way around. The only way such isolated
elements would occur in core is if we condone the version heterogeneity you
suggest for them!
--HM