[dokuwiki] Re: Core Features vs Plugins

Jay Dickon Glanville wrote:


It is not clean which versions of DokuWiki the plugin supports.  (Does
it support the latest version of DW or not?)  It's only beta.  It has
limitations with CamelCase because when the plugin was started,
CamelCase wasn't supported (same for ignore links in code blocks).
etc, etc, etc.
This indicates either camelcase of the pagemove plugin aren't working properly with dokuwiki. Like all other links, camel case links should be recorded in metadata. The pagemove plugin should read the link information in the metadata not rely on its own processing of the page to determine links. Although the sensible thing to do is probably to leave a wiki page redirect (another plugin :) ) in place of the moved page.
[ Can links be written to page history? e.g. moved from old:namespace:page & moved to new:namespace:page ] 



If this functionality was part of the core feature list, then when
features like CamelCase were added, the the move functionality would
have also been updated to handle it at the same time.  Also, there
wouldn't be a question as to which of DW this feature supported (as
they would be released together as one product).
Alternatively it would contribute to DW becoming large an unwieldy to maintain. 
[ Is camelcase part of DW, I thought it was a plugin ? ]



Of course, as per the list of core feature cons listed in the original
email, adding move functionality to core would slow the release cycle
of DW.

So, do you think that the page move functionality should be core to
DW, or should it be left as a plugin?
I think it should be left as a plugin. If the plugin was built to a sufficient standard and it was vital/useful Andi may negotiate with the author for its inclusion in core dokuwiki. That has happened in the past. Unfinished or buggy plugins, for certain, will never be included. Page moving is quite a complex thing to undertake because of all the associated bits and pieces - e.g. search, backlinks, history - and different people have different ideas on how they should be handled. 


Let me ask the question this way: if you're using plugin X because you
can't live without it, how would you feel if the next release of DW
broke that plugin?  How would you feel if the plugin authors took
months (or never) to make the plugin compatible with the newer version
of DW?
This is a tough one, but again it comes down to developer resources. If the plugin is popular and useful someone else will take on the mantle either by updating the original or writing a new one. I have had the same thing happen to my favourite theme for Firefox/Thunderbird. The original author let it go. Quite a while later someone else took it on, but its still not been updated properly for Thunderbird/Mac. :( 

-- Chris

--
DokuWiki mailing list - more info at
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:mailinglist

Other related posts: