Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Joomla! Platform Development
Home
About this group
Contact owner to join
Message from discussion Proposal on New MVC Classes and Backward Compatibility
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Amy Stephen  
View profile  
 More options May 15 2012, 12:46 pm
From: Amy Stephen <amystep...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, May 15 2012 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: Proposal on New MVC Classes and Backward Compatibility
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Andrew -

Thanks for this clarification.

Yannick - it's a good time to begin discussing this on the CMS list. If I
am understanding Andrew's point, you can't use the new classes in the CMS
-- unless his PR (or similar) are adopted. So, the potential for conflict
between a 2.5 module that uses the existing model -- and the new MVC
structure - doesn't even exist right now.

The CMS might decide to not accept his PR, and just hold off until 4.0, or
take it in and use an approach like you have outlined, renaming classes so
that they can be used in parallel fashion.

In any event, it really is clearly a CMS choice and now that that is
sorted, discussing it on the CMS list does make sense.

In all fairness, this topic was discussed at length and even those of us
with objections ended up agreeing it was okay to move forward introducing
the classes to the platform. Sounds like it's now time to have the same
discussion on the CMS list about how to - or if to - or when to - bring
them in there.

On Monday, May 14, 2012 6:07:16 PM UTC-5, Andrew Eddie wrote:On 15 May 2012

08:27, Amy Stephen <amystep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, this conflict would exist if a User installed a 3.0
component
> that uses the new MVC classes - and also displayed the "Latest News"
Module
> for the same ItemID. Both extensions would require a different JModel

class.

Currently, if they use JModelBase in the CMS (assuming it's on 12.1)
it will implement from JModel, but the autoloader is going to find
JModel in the legacy tree first, which will be a class (not an
interface).  It's simply not going to work - PHP will error in the
component before the developer can even distribute it.  That's why I
made that pull request against the CMS to add non-interfaced versions
of JModelBase and co.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

**


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google