[RFC|Merged] Extensions

These requests for comments/change have lead to an implemented feature that has been successfully merged into the 3.1/Ascraeus branch. Everything listed in this forum will be available in phpBB 3.1.
Post Reply
User avatar
brunoais
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by brunoais » Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:50 am

You should change those names. Besides that, I agree with your proposal

User avatar
igorw
Registered User
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:47 pm

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by igorw » Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:12 am

Explain what you mean by keeping track of how many times an extension has been enabled. We have both migrations and the state column to keep track of state transitions.

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by MichaelC » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:16 am

igorw wrote:Explain what you mean by keeping track of how many times an extension has been enabled. We have both migrations and the state column to keep track of state transitions.
In migrations, will it keep track of whether it has been installed previously and then purging would remove it?
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
igorw
Registered User
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:47 pm

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by igorw » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:57 am

Nils should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this to be the case.

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by MichaelC » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:32 pm

After talking on IRC with naderman and igor:

There isn't an ext_id as it wouldn't really provide any benefits and name is required to be in the DB and unique anyway.

However, the name should be primary key so it is clear from looking at the schema which column is used for lookups.
So seeing as there isn't a problem with having strings as a primary key, it should be the primary key.
Last edited by MichaelC on Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1736
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by DavidIQ » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:48 pm

You mean the name of the extension? How are you going to ensure it's unique? Maybe an additional identifier should be used like the permalink.
Image

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by MichaelC » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:56 am

DavidIQ wrote:You mean the name of the extension? How are you going to ensure it's unique? Maybe an additional identifier should be used like the permalink.
Yes, the clean name of the extension that is in the directory and manifest (Human Name is also in the Manifest).
The unique constraint and the primary key would make it so it has to be unique too.
Permalink to what? Why would it need a permalink as the link is always the extension directory followed by the extension name...
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1736
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by DavidIQ » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:39 am

Unknown Bliss wrote:
DavidIQ wrote:You mean the name of the extension? How are you going to ensure it's unique? Maybe an additional identifier should be used like the permalink.
Yes, the clean name of the extension that is in the directory and manifest (Human Name is also in the Manifest).
The unique constraint and the primary key would make it so it has to be unique too.
Permalink to what? Why would it need a permalink as the link is always the extension directory followed by the extension name...
I'm talking about where the extension repo will be at. You need to think about the correlation between what's installed and what is available for installation in the repo, wherever it may be.
Image

User avatar
callumacrae
Infrastructure Team
Infrastructure Team
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by callumacrae » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:51 am

DavidIQ wrote:You mean the name of the extension? How are you going to ensure it's unique? Maybe an additional identifier should be used like the permalink.
Hash!
Made by developers, for developers!
My blog

User avatar
brunoais
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions

Post by brunoais » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:59 am

callumacrae wrote:
DavidIQ wrote:You mean the name of the extension? How are you going to ensure it's unique? Maybe an additional identifier should be used like the permalink.
Hash!
DB UNIQUE constraint.

Post Reply