4 Апрель 2013 г. 10:11:44 пользователь Daniel
Friesen
(daniel(a)nadir-seen-fire.com) написал:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:23:41 -0700, Dmitriy Sintsov
<questpc(a)rambler.ru> wrote:
> 4 Апрель 2013 г. 9:16:49 пользователь Jeroen De Dauw >>
(jeroendedauw(a)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