Talk:Requests for comment/Third-party components

Logging / Monolog
The "devops sprint" being worked on by the Platform Core is hoping to produce an RFC on a revamp of the logging APIs and functionality in MediaWiki. There may be some synergy with that initiative if the fundamental idea of how best to integrate 3rd party code into the platform can get some attention. --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wikimania Scholarship standalone application is using Monolog and will likely produce a udp2log compatible \Monolog\Handler implementation by the time it is released to production. --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * creates a proof of concept implementation for the Structured logging RFC that includes using a composer.json file in a subdirectory to allow using Composer to import and maintain third-party libraries within mediawiki-core. --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Where it makes sense
If we want to use a third party component, I think there should be justification beyond "its shiny". If we have our own component, that works perfectly well, I see no reason to fix what isn't broken. Bawolff (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. For mail, I've added a link to a bug which has several dependencies and might be helped by a proper library. It would be useful to link bug reports which may be helped/receive a fresh look with a new framework. --Nemo 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC mentions in the rightmost columns what the advantages/disadvantages might be. This RFC is not advocating replacing all of MediaWiki with third-party components; it's just an attempt to consider the possibilities and see what might be worth replacing. Parent5446 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why Swift Mailer?
Has a proper comparison been done between Swift Mailer and PHPMailer been done? Daniel Friesen (Dantman) (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be very interested in this too. I have only litte experience with SwiftMailer, but so far I found it very useful and easy to understand. But PHPMailer also sounds interesting. If integrating thidy-party components to MW becomes a real thing I'd love to help with this. --Osnard (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Integrating third-party components is already a real thing, though mostly for a lot of JavaScript. This is to say, if you want to give it a try you can just submit a patch for SwiftMailer and then we would know better what the issues are with implementing it if any. Maybe SwiftMailer and PHPMailer are both good enough, in that case what will make one prevail over the other is just which is coded first for MediaWiki. :) --Nemo 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not comprehensive, but Swift_Mailer seems to be a **lot** more robust. PHPMailer has everything packed into a few classes, whereas Swift_Mailer actually has a separation of concerns, with classes for attachments, transport types, etc. A result of this is that PHPMailer has two different functions for embedding multimedia: addEmbeddedImage for files and addStringEmbeddedImage for strings. Another example is that PHPMailer supports only two bodies for multipart messages, whereas Swift_Mailer will add in as many bodies as you tell it to since a body is wrapped in its own object. In addition, PHPMailer only really supports SMTP, whereas Swift_Mailer has an extensible transport architecture, and multiple transport providers. (And there's also plugins, and monolog integration, etc.) Parent5446 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

CLDR
Do things like AntiSpoof fit somewhere here? It seems most of its content my be replaced by the ICU API, i.e. by some additional data/libraries in extension:CLDR. See 63217. --Nemo 22:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Discuss next week?
I'm planning on having us talk about Ryan Lane's Requests for comment/MediaWiki libraries in an RfC review meeting next week, and it seems to me that it would be useful to discuss "Third-party components" in the same hour. Would you be available Monday or Tuesday afternoon for such a chat? Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Afternoon in what timezone? Better give UTC hour ranges... --Nemo 15:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)