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

[Ernesto Baschny [cron IT]]

JoH asenau schrieb am 12.02.2010 11:03:
>> No, that were exactly my "fears", which you are talking small, but to
>> me are pretty crucial. Manually going through every parameter in
>> TSref to scan for potential conflicts sounds like a very audacious
>> task.
> 
> First of all: If you are afraid to do it, it needn't be your business ;-)
> 
> Second: Of course we won't work with TSref but with the code itself, maybe
> even using a check that can be triggered by each stdWrap function to test
> itself against the list of available stdWrap functions. If one of these
> functions should say "Hellooo! I am using a stdWrap parameter name myself
> without using the original stdWrap function!" we will recognize that and
> think about a solution. If there is no such call, which is what I would
> expect, we just go on.
> 
>> We need to go through the complete tslib classes and remove all manual
>> calls to stdWrap which are then being replaced by the "automagical"
>> calls (else we would call it twice).
> 
> Of course we will remove them, if there are any "real" stdWrap function
> calls outside of stdWrap, since they are going to be handled by stdWrap now.
> But I don't see a big deal in removing the if/else clauses from the list of
> tslib functions. No real fun, but also not a very complex job. ;-)
> Maybe we can even use stdWrap itself to remove an array key after the
> stdWrap function has been called, so that it won't be called twice. We just
> have to make sure stdWrap is the first one for each cObject in this case.
> This way we could remove the superfluous function calls later on, while the
> whole stuff would be already working.
> 
>> I love the idea and hope we can get that working, but I guess it is
>> not as easy as Steffen is implying. Walking through the array is the
>> easy part, but the task of cleaning up the existing code is not.
> 
> IMHO it IS easy, although a bit time consuming. It's not even something you
> really have to think about, since we are not talking about a complex
> algorithm but about walking through the $conf Array and calling some
> functions triggered by array keys.
> 
> I'm just wating for some more +1 to have something like an overall agreement
> and then I would like to start thinking about the solution together with
> some of the usual suspects.
> 
> Just my 2 cents

Yes, absolutely +1 to the concept!

I am glad that the issues I had in mind were being consindered (not that
I was not expecting it, but it hasn't been put into words until now).

And you are right, I don't want to do it :) , but I would be glad to
help by reviewing, as soon as there is something to review.

Cheers,
Ernesto