headers
Alec Thomas | 1 Jun 2006 03:42

Re: Deprecating wiki_to_html et al.

On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:01:27PM +0200, Christian Boos wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I hope I'm not the only one that is annoyed by
> the inconsistencies in the html_to_... functions,
> especially the fact that sometimes the req is
> given, sometimes not.

Yes, I agree. 

> So I'd like to deprecate them in favor of using a
> Wikifier object, which is as convenient to use,
> and more consistent about its required arguments.
> Moreover, it can cache a formatter object for later reuse.

So something similar to the util.markup.Fragment and company, in that
it will take Wiki text as an argument and its __str__ method will return
the formatted HTML?

> In the patch, I only changed the trac.wiki package
> to take advantage of this, for illustrative purpose
> and to keep it small.

Where's the patch?

--

-- 
Evolution: Taking care of those too stupid to take care of themselves.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alec Thomas | 1 Jun 2006 03:43

Re: Deprecating wiki_to_html et al.

On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:01:27PM +0200, Christian Boos wrote:
> I hope I'm not the only one that is annoyed by
> the inconsistencies in the html_to_... functions,

I released I just assumed you were talking about "wiki_to_..."...is that
correct?

--

-- 
Evolution: Taking care of those too stupid to take care of themselves.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christopher Lenz | 1 Jun 2006 10:39
Picon
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Deprecating wiki_to_html et al.

Am 29.05.2006 um 19:01 schrieb Christian Boos:
> I hope I'm not the only one that is annoyed by
> the inconsistencies in the html_to_... functions,
> especially the fact that sometimes the req is
> given, sometimes not.

You find it annoying from what perspective? As a user of the  
functions or ...?

IIRC the original reason why wiki_to_oneliner (for example) doesn't  
get the req is that it didn't expand macros. That was before the Href  
object could/should be accessed via the req object though.

> So I'd like to deprecate them in favor of using a
> Wikifier object, which is as convenient to use,
> and more consistent about its required arguments.

Which we could also fix by adding a req parameter to the wiki_to_*  
functions that are missing it. But of course that would break  
backwards compatibility (unless we added it as keyword argument to  
the end, which would be inconsistent for the caller).

With Wikifier you'd first have to instantiate the object and then  
call the to_xxx() method, which is more code than what we have now.

> Moreover, it can cache a formatter object for later reuse.

True, but that's a minor detail that could be achieved differently  
(currying, for example).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Christopher Lenz | 1 Jun 2006 11:46
Picon
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Wrapping up 0.10

Am 30.05.2006 um 00:38 schrieb Emmanuel Blot:
> I was thinking about this interface too, but I think it's a bit late
> to merge it to 0.10. This may add some instability to the code (and
> new bugs to fix)

I agree, plus the design of the interface isn't really that solid yet  
IIRC.

Cheers,
Chris
--
Christopher Lenz
   cmlenz at gmx.de
   http://www.cmlenz.net/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christopher Lenz | 1 Jun 2006 11:50
Picon
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Wrapping up 0.10

Am 29.05.2006 um 17:52 schrieb Christian Boos:
> Christopher Lenz wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> AFAIK all the major objectives for 0.10 are implemented… what  
>> needs to be done before we can put together a mostly feature- 
>> complete beta?
>
> Is the mysql adapter considered to be finished?

It will be declared "experiment" for 0.10. I'm pretty sure it'd not  
finished, and we'll be getting bug reports and hopefully also patches.

> If yes, we could update the milestone description.

Right.

>> I.e. what areas do you think are in need of work before the  
>> release, and cannot be postponed to 0.11 (e.g., anything  
>> concerning API changes or general backwards-compatibility concerns)?

[snip]

> Then, there are still a few things that needs to be done, discussed
> and stabilized at the level of the mimeview API:
> 1. replacing the IHTMLPreviewRenderer by the IContentConverter
> 2. use some kind of "Conversion" object to encapsulate the conversion
>    information, the get_supported_conversion methods really deal
>    with too long tuples (and that's not really extensible)
> 3. similar to the IContentConverter, I'd like to add a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Emmanuel Blot | 1 Jun 2006 15:49
Picon
Gravatar

Re: ticket spam

Chris,

As you just closed #1145, can you give a quick status/feeling about
this suggestion ?

Thanks,
Manu

On 5/31/06, Molle Bestefich <molle.bestefich <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering.
>
> Does Trac use the official Google / MSN Search / Yahoo
> anti-comment-spam attribute (rel=nofollow)?
>
> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html
> _______________________________________________
> Trac-dev mailing list
> Trac-dev <at> lists.edgewall.com
> http://lists.edgewall.com/mailman/listinfo/trac-dev
>

--

-- 
Manu
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Molle Bestefich | 1 Jun 2006 18:27
Picon

Re: ticket spam

Follow-up question, has anyone thought about adding one of those
"enter the letters you see in this picture" thingys?

(can't remember the correct term, but I'm aware that the concept has a
name ;-)..)
Permalink | Reply | 21 comments |
headers
Emmanuel Blot | 1 Jun 2006 18:29
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Re: ticket spam

Captcha ?

On 6/1/06, Molle Bestefich <molle.bestefich <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Follow-up question, has anyone thought about adding one of those
> "enter the letters you see in this picture" thingys?
>
> (can't remember the correct term, but I'm aware that the concept has a
> name ;-)..)
> _______________________________________________
> Trac-dev mailing list
> Trac-dev <at> lists.edgewall.com
> http://lists.edgewall.com/mailman/listinfo/trac-dev
>

--

-- 
Manu
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andres Salomon | 1 Jun 2006 18:29

Re: Re: ticket spam

On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 18:27 +0200, Molle Bestefich wrote:
> Follow-up question, has anyone thought about adding one of those
> "enter the letters you see in this picture" thingys?
> 
> (can't remember the correct term, but I'm aware that the concept has a
> name ;-)..)

Captcha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha)

Those things are horrible. :/
Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Molle Bestefich | 1 Jun 2006 18:48
Picon

Re: ticket spam

> Captcha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha)

Thanks, guys :-)

Andres Salomon wrote:
> Those things are horrible. :/

Why?

As I see it, of the three solutions:

========= Solutions =========

* rel=nofollow

Pros:
 - Great solution long term because it removes any and all incentive
for spammers.

Cons:
 - Not a solution short term, since:

 --- Needs to be deployed.

 --- Dumb spammers will ignore it and implement Trac spammers anyway.

 --- Ignorant spammers won't notice it and their Trac spammers will
continue operating.

 --- Some extremely nit-picky people doesn't like fiddling with PageRank.  Huh.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |

Gmane