[TYPO3-4-3] Re: [TYPO3-core] RFC #13074: Feature: stdWrap for inclusion of CSS and JS files via pageRenderer

[Steffen Kamper]

Hi Joey,

JoH asenau schrieb:
>>> Just push the value of any includeJS.blah through stdWrap and make a
>>> prominent notice about it in the docs - that's all.
>> i don't like that, and it has drawbacks: we need cObj all the time in
>> pageRenderer which slows down, as it's not easy to differentiate.
> 
> I don't see a big problem with something like that:
> 
> if (isset($array['name.']])) {
>     do something
> } else {
>     $JSfile = $array['name']
> }
> 

yes, that would be possible.

> Only use stdWrap functions, when there are any parameters assigned to
> name+'.'
> 
>> The "direct" stdWrap in TS only exists in TEXT, all others need
>> stdWrap.bla. This is inconsistent anyway and confuses many users, as
>> the TEXT object mostly is the first one they use, and they use same
>> syntax with other objects and fail.
> 
> This is why I always have been asking to assign stdWrap to all cObjects the
> same way as it is done with TEXT objects.
> HTML objects make it even worse, because the stdWrap is only available as
> parameter of *value*.
> COA, IMAGE, HMENU and some others use if and wrap separately, even though
> they also use stdWrap.
> 

exact this is what makes it really difficult to understand, you always 
have to look in tsRef to see if a parameter supports stdWrap.

I'm for this solution if really "every" parameter support stdWrap if 
used with "name" + ".". This would make it for a user easy and transparent.

>> Good comparison here is TMENU where you also have an "allWrap" and an
>> "stdWrap" for special operation.
> 
> This is no good comparison, because allWrap, wrapItemAndSub and linkWrap are
> the *special* operations (for menuitems) while stdWrap is *default*. And
> sdtWrap is used for the *text* of the menuitem only, while the special
> parameters are applied to the ready made *link*. (except you set
> doNotLinkIt=1, which again is a very special case)
>

I know this object is one of the most complex object. Do you think it's 
possible to make it more easy and transparent?


> On the other hand it would be fine for me to make it consistent by using
> stdWrap as "the one and only" default parameter for all objects (making the
> direct "wrap" and "if" deprecated but offering them together with all
> stdWrap functions), while leaving the specialties to the first level of
> parameters.
> 
> # deprecated will be removed in 4.6
> 10 = OBJECTNAME
> 10.wrap = <blah>|</blah>
> 
> # new default for all cObjects including those
> # who still haven't got stdWrap functions
> 10 = OBJECTNAME
> 10.stdWrap.wrap = <blah>|</blah>
> 
> For me consistency is a must to tackle the famous "last 20%" :-)
> 

yes, +1 for this. And a general stdWrap for all params when used with "." :)

Also extension authors should support this:
$this->conf['param'] = $this->cObj->stdWrap($conf['param'], 
$conf['param.']);

vg Steffen
>