[TYPO3-core] Changing behavior of the TEXT cObject

[Markus Klein]

I'm fine with your suggestion as well, but then we have to:
* Change ALL cObjects to be consistent; remove all the stdWrap properties from them. (sounds like a 7.0 thingy)
* Keep a list of properties of each cObject to unset before the stdWrap-function is called.

The parsing time is not an issue here and also the memory consumption does not really change, the properties are just stored in another array.

Kind regards
Markus

------------------------------------------------------------
Markus Klein
TYPO3 CMS Active Contributors Team Member


> -----Original Message-----
> From: typo3-team-core-bounces at lists.typo3.org [mailto:typo3-team-core-
> bounces at lists.typo3.org] On Behalf Of JoH asenau
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 10:00 AM
> To: typo3-team-core at lists.typo3.org
> Subject: Re: [TYPO3-core] Changing behavior of the TEXT cObject
> 
> Am 06.02.2014 09:08, schrieb François Suter:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Christopher (from the Doc Team) has proposed to clean up the TEXT
> > cObject to make it behave like other cObjects. His patch [1] would
> > throw a deprecation warning when root-level properties of the TEXT
> > object are used, except "stdWrap". This makes behavior of all cObjects
> consistent.
> >
> > In the patch review, Benni objected that the HTML object was
> > deprecated because of its behavior and now we would make the TEXT
> > object behave like the old HTML object.
> 
> IMHO it should be just the other way around, since it's superfluous to write
> stdWrap each time, when each and every cObject is known to have the full
> set of stdWrap properties.
> 
> TEXT is the only element so far, that does not make use of that "second
> level" stdWrap, although it's possible to do it, since there is stdWrap.stdWrap
> 
> So currently we just make an extra call to stdWrap, which should of course be
> avoided, but it would be good to just write
> 
> blah = WHATEVER
> blah.wrap
> 
> instead of
> 
> blah = WHATEVER
> blah.stdWrap.wrap
> 
> and it would be consistent, since we don't do it for the stdWrap properties as
> well.
> 
> We are writing
> 
> blah.stdWrap.dataWrap.field
> 
> and not
> 
> blah.stdWrap.dataWrap.stdWrap.field
> 
> but actually it should be
> 
> blah.dataWrap.field
> 
> It would be easier to read and even while parsing the TypoScript it would
> save us some time.
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents
> 
> Joey
> 
> --
> Wenn man keine Ahnung hat: Einfach mal Fresse halten!
> (If you have no clues: simply shut your gob sometimes!)
> Dieter Nuhr, German comedian
> Xing: http://contact.cybercraft.de
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/bunnyfield
> TYPO3 cookbook (2nd edition): http://www.typo3experts.com
> _______________________________________________
> Before posting to this list, please have a look to the posting rules
> on the following websites:
> 
> http://typo3.org/teams/core/core-mailinglist-rules/
> http://typo3.org/development/bug-fixing/diff-and-patch/
> _______________________________________________
> TYPO3-team-core mailing list
> TYPO3-team-core at lists.typo3.org
> http://lists.typo3.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/typo3-team-core