4 Апрель 2013 г. 10:11:44 пользователь Daniel Friesen (daniel@nadir-seen-fire.com) написал:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:23:41 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov questpc@rambler.ru wrote:
4 Апрель 2013 г. 9:16:49 пользователь Jeroen De Dauw (jeroendedauw@gmail.com) написал: Hey,
I see no reason to get rid of the hooks class.
Given you also do not understand why I think the comment is funny, I recommend you read up on why writing static code is harmful. And on how global state can hide in static "classes".
We use static classes other places in core.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon In almost all such cases I have seen in core this kind of use of static is bad.
And there's no reason to revert to hideous functions like we had
before. No one is suggesting that. Cheers --
Why the hooks should not be static? Multi-site (farm) built-in support in core without $wgConf? Common page table across multiple sites? Dmitriy
How do you envision non-static hooks working and supporting multiple wikis?
If hooks will be non-static, should the hooks become the members of RequestContext, maybe? Dmitriy