No one was using these anyway :)
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #2 | flexifilter_remove_step.patch | 29.75 KB | dmitrig01 |
| flexifilter_remove_step.patch | 29.32 KB | dmitrig01 |
No one was using these anyway :)
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #2 | flexifilter_remove_step.patch | 29.75 KB | dmitrig01 |
| flexifilter_remove_step.patch | 29.32 KB | dmitrig01 |
Comments
Comment #1
cwgordon7 commentedThis does not deal with using existing filters as flexifilter components. Invoking hook_filter with ($op = 'run') will do nothing.
Comment #2
dmitrig01 commentedComment #3
cwgordon7 commentedThis still does not deal with the previously mentioned problem.
To be specific, this line:
Will flop, as op will be 'run', now, not 'prepare' or 'process'.
Comment #4
cwgordon7 commented(But for the record, I think that this is a good idea, just needs some minor tweaking)
Comment #5
corsix commentedAs long as we want full compatibility with the existing filter system, we cannot remove step.
I define compatibility as: Using a filter in an input format will have the same effect as using the filter as the sole component in a flexifilter and using the flexifilter in an input format.
To do this, the flexifilter needs to receive and dispatch two steps, not one.
Comment #6
cwgordon7 commentedI disagree. It is possible to do in one step by invoking both hook_filter ops in the flexifilter component's run op. What would be wrong with this?
Comment #7
corsix commentedA,B,C are normal filters, things happen in this order:
A prepare
B prepare
C prepare
A process
B process
C process
B is replaced by a flexifilter containing the filter as a component, things now happen in a different order if flexifilters only have one step:
A prepare
C prepare
A process
B prepare
B process
C process
Comment #8
cwgordon7 commentedI see what you are saying. Thus am marking postponed until we can change core hook_filter.