Hi!On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Yaron Koren <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Hi Yury,On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Yury Katkov <email@example.com> wrote:
Hi Yaron!I think that for SiteSettings this patch could make sense although I'm strongly against such interdependencies between extensions (after trying to contribute to PageSchemas)Could you expand on that?It's just a lot harder to contribute the code when there is such a dependency. In order to contribute the code I have to make changes not in one extension but in two or three. This can create inconsistency, like the one we can see now in Page Schemas: there are some features that are presented in PS but the code in SF still doesn't have support for them, because the changes haven't been accepted.I understand that you've had in mind the following scenario: there is Page Schemas and everyone can register their own extension in it. It didn't work well in the Page Schemas case but it can in principle work in case of Site Settings since it's not SMW-specific.Is AdminLinks mentioned in SMW? That's really strange and surprising - I thought it's just a header button and the predefined wikipage for the content (well, maybe it can also check, which extensions are installed).Every extension-related link in Special:AdminLinks is added by that extension.