urosm
/
ikiwiki
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge branch 'master' into dependency-types

master
Joey Hess 2009-10-07 13:36:40 -04:00
parent b6b7dc3a43 66e894c877
commit 0ebb44955a
1 changed files with 38 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

40
doc/todo/dependency_types.mdwn
View File

@ -170,6 +170,11 @@ I added an "add_depends_spec()" function that adds a dependency on the pagespec
changes, then the dependent page is rebuilt. At the moment the implementation uses the same hack used by map and inline -
just add all the pages that currently exist as traditional content dependencies.
> As I note below, a problem with this approach is that it has to try
> matching the pagespec against every page, redundantly with the work done
> by the plugin. (But there are ways to avoid that redundant matching.)
> --[[Joey]]
Getting back to commenting on your proposal:
Just talking about the definition of a "presence dependency" for the moment, and ignoring implementation. Is a
@ -180,6 +185,11 @@ after `test_page`. `new_page` will not match the spec. Now we'll delete and th
`new_page` will match the spec, and yet `new_page` itself hasn't changed. Nor has its 'presence' - it was present
before and it is present now. Should this cause a re-build of any page that has a 'presence' dependency on the spec?
> Yes, a presence dep will trigger when a page is added, or removed.
> Your example is valid.. but it's also not handled right by normal,
> (content) dependencies, for the same reasons. --[[Joey]]
I think that is another version of the problem you encountered with meta-data.
In the longer term I was thinking we'd have to introduce a concept of 'internal pagespec dependencies'. Note that I'm
@ -217,6 +227,19 @@ sigh.
-- [[Will]]
> I have also been thinking about some sort of analysis pass over pagespecs
> to determine what metadata, pages, etc they depend on. It is indeed
> tricky to do. Even if it's just limited to returning a list of pages
> as you suggest.
>
> Consider: For a `*` glob, it has to return a list of all pages
> in the wiki. Which is expensive. And what if the pagespec is
> something like `* and backlink(index)`? Without analyising the
> boolean relationship between terms, the returned list
> will have many more items in it than it should. Or do we not make
> globs return their matches? (If so we have to deal with those
> with one of the other methods disucssed.) --[[Joey]]
----
### Link dependencies
@ -257,9 +280,22 @@ we grew the complication of `depends_simple`.
One way to fix this is to include with each dependency, a list of pages
that currently match it. If the list changes, the dependency is triggered.
Should be doable, but seems to involve a more work than
Should be doable, but may involve more work than
currently. Consider that a dependency on "bugs/*" currently
is triggered by just checking until *one* page is found to match it.
But to store the list, *every* page would have to be tried against it.
Unless the list can somehow be intelligently updated, looking at only the
changed pages.
changed pages.
----
What if there were a function that added a dependency, and at the same time
returned a list of pages matching the pagespec? Plugins that use this would
be exactly the ones, like inline and map, for which this is a problem, and
which already do a match pass over all pages.
Adding explicit dependencies during this pass would thus be nearly free.
Not 100% free since it would add explicit deps for things that are not
shown on an inline that limits its display to the first sorted N items.
I suppose we could reach 100% free by making the function also handle
sorting and limiting, though that could be overkill.