Tags:
archive_me1Add my vote for this tag stale_content1Add my vote for this tag create new tag
, view all tags

Pieces of code that we need in the core

Programmatically read a twiki table.

-- MartinCleaver - 15 Oct 2004

Do people agree that InTopicTable functionality is needed?
Do you agree or disagree? Please select one of the radio buttons below and click the button.
I 1 - Strongly disagree   2 - Disagree   3 - am Neutral   4 - Agree   5 - Strongly Agree  


3 CrawfordCurrie 15 Oct 2004

Are their multiple candidates of already built? e.g. in a plugin?

I was sure that this functionality must already exist in a plugin, and indeed, CrawfordCurrie said that the DBCacheContrib has such functionality.

Therefore, if this does not already exist in the core, can we add DBCacheContrib to the core?

Should DBCachePlugin be added to the CorePackage?
Do you agree or disagree? Please select one of the radio buttons below and click the button.
I 1 - Strongly disagree   2 - Disagree   3 - am Neutral   4 - Agree   5 - Strongly Agree  


1 CrawfordCurrie 15 Oct 2004
5 MartinCleaver 15 Oct 2004

-- MartinCleaver - 13 Oct 2004

In the same way as the functionality of mailnotify is moved out of the core and into MailerContrib, this functionality should not be imported into the core.

  1. Compilation already takes 70% of a view runtime. Let's not make that worse by putting in stuff that is called - at best - only once.
  2. A reusable code module - a Contrib- can be selectivly deployed to only those sites that actually need it. We should not burden other sites with it.

-- CrawfordCurrie - 15 Oct 2004

Ok, Core is ambiguous. I didn't mean TWikiKernel, I meant CorePackage. (Question above changed.)

Like in http://koala.ilog.fr/twikiirc/bin/irclogger_log/twiki?date=2004-10-13,Wed&sel=519#l515 you said, in response to my question "Do you think any parts of the FQP should be in the core?" :

the whole of the DBCachePlugin should be core 

Obviously I misunderstood, can you clarify?

-- MartinCleaver - 15 Oct 2004

From a user view it does not matter what you call it. What is important is that a piece of functionality is

  • Maintained within the context of the TWiki release and can thus be deployed with a new release if needed, and
  • A new TWiki release does not go out unless this functionality is updated.

Given that contributed plugins will be treated this way, it is good if functionality moves into plugins.

However, I would like to see most of CrawfordCurrie's plugins, as decomposed from his FormQueryPlugin, to enter that status.

-- ThomasWeigert - 15 Oct 2004

Aye, sorry Martin, for not being clear. I don't want the DBCachePlugin in the kernel package, because I want what the DBCachePlugin does to be a function of the kernel, and not need the plugin at all. That's what I meant when I said the whole of DBCachePlugin should be core - note that I said "should be core" and not "should be in the core".

Another example where what should be core functionality - parameterised includes - is relegated to a plugin (MacrosPlugin)..

-- CrawfordCurrie - 25 Oct 2004

We do need to be careful about the distinction of CorePackage from Kernel. Are you happy with the statement that the DBCache should be a TWikiSubsystem?

s/kernel package/CorePackage.

-- MartinCleaver - 25 Oct 2004

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r9 < r8 < r7 < r6 < r5 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r9 - 2004-10-25 - MartinCleaver
 
  • Learn about TWiki  
  • Download TWiki
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by Perl Hosted by OICcam.com Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback. Ask community in the support forum.
Copyright © 1999-2017 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.