Hi,
Im trying to fix http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-4274
Basically if you do $xwiki.getDocument("someDoc").getRenderedContent()
it'll get executed in the context of the current doc which I believe
is wrong especially since other signatures of getRenderedContent()
execute in the target document's context.
I have fixed this locally but found that admin.vm for example is
assuming that getRenderedContent() will get executed in the context of
the calling doc (i.e. XWiki.Import when doing an import for example).
FYI the chain flow is admin.vm -- getRenderedContent() -->
XWiki.AdminSheet --> XWiki.AdminImportSheet --> importinline.vm, which
requires the current doc to be XWiki.Import (to get/put attachments
from/to it).
I can fix this easily using a new getRenderedContent signature I've
introduced.
However I'm wondering if we have other places that incorrectly use
getRenderedContent() and assume it won't be rendered in the context of
the target document.
Is this change too dangerous to make? If not know, we'll need to it
quickly (2.1M1?) since it's an important bug IMO.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
Hello,
I would like to request a repository on xwiki-contrib for the Recruitment
Application i am working on.
I'd like the repo to be named application-recruitment and also jira
component.
My github username is chalx.
Thank you,
Alexandru Chelariu
Hi everyone,
On the 15th of December (i.e. in a month's time), it will be **10 years**
since the first commit on the XWiki open source project.
Ludovic did the first commit in CVS on Sourceforge:
"
15.12.2003 10:13:33, by ludovic
Initial revision
"
(Can be seen at
http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/XWIKI/search?from=20030101&to=20040101
)
10 years is starting to be some respectable milestone!
I invite everyone to join us in celebrating by adding your own story about
your interaction with the XWiki community or the XWiki software at
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/TenYearsOfXWiki
<XWiki SAS hat>
Since I'm also the CTO of the XWiki SAS company, I'd like to officially
invite all the members of this great community to join us in celebrating
the 10 days of the XWiki project at the XWiki SAS office in Paris, France
on the 12th of December 2013.
Here's the invitation:
http://www.xwiki.com/lang/en/News/XWiki+10th+Anniversary
See you there!
</XWiki SAS hat>
Well done everyone!
-Vincent Massol
Hi devs,
Running mvn dependency:dependency-analyze produces interesting results.
For example:
[INFO] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Building XWiki Commons - Properties 3.2-SNAPSHOT
[INFO] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…
[INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:2.3:analyze (default-cli) @ xwiki-commons-properties ---
[WARNING] Used undeclared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.slf4j:slf4j-api:jar:1.6.1:compile
[WARNING] javax.inject:javax.inject:jar:1:compile
[WARNING] Unused declared dependencies found:
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-component-api:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:compile
[WARNING] org.xwiki.commons:xwiki-commons-test:jar:3.2-SNAPSHOT:test
[WARNING] org.hibernate:hibernate-validator:jar:4.2.0.Final:test
[WARNING] org.hamcrest:hamcrest-core:jar:1.1:test
[WARNING] org.jmock:jmock:jar:2.5.1:test
The question is (for this module but more generally for all others):
* Should we add slf4j and javax.inject reps in the pom.xml for this module? (for ex today slf4j and javax.inject are found in the component-api dep)
I think we should, wdyt?
Note that the "Unused declared dependencies found:" doesn't always generate correct results as is the case here. This is mostly because it's a static byte code check so any dep used at runtime will be considered unused.
See http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnex-book/reference/optimizing-sect-dependen…
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi devs.
In the coming 5.3 milestone 2, all wikis are displayed in the Wiki Index,
including the templates, which was not the case before.
>From the user point of view, maybe these templates should not be listed in
the Wiki Index. But on the other hand, if you want to see a template, you
will not be able to access through the wiki index.
We also have introduced the "hidden" flag for wikis (in the WikiDescriptor,
not in the UI yet). If we consider template wikis are "technical" wikis, we
may use this flag to hide them. Then, in the Wiki Index, we don't care if a
wiki is a template or not, we only care about the "hidden" flag. If the
user does not want to see the templates in the list, she can mark them as
hidden, exactly as we do for documents.
But what about the template list in the wiki creation wizard? Should we
list all templates, or only the visible ones?
My proposition:
- all wikis are visible though the wiki index (template or not).
- if we want to hide templates to the users, we use the hidden flag in the
wiki descriptor.
- in the wiki creation wizard, we display all the templates, even these
which are tagged as hidden.
WDYT?
Thanks,
Louis-Marie
Reviving http://markmail.org/message/hlnqke3igkbec332 for as an official vote.
We have waited way too long and I think we really need to find a
solution even if none of the committers use Windows since a long time.
Every time a Windows dev even think of contributing he is very quickly
discouraged...
As a reminder the issue is that working on XWiki source code is a pain
for MS Windows developers because of the (impossible to understand I
agree) limitation on path size.
So the idea is to find a new logical rule to drastically shorten our
paths and Sergiu proposed the following: remove duplicated information
from our paths to maven modules.
Here is an example:
xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-rendering/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformations/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformation-macro
(131 chars)
would become
core/rendering/transformations/macro (36 chars)
So WDYT ?
Here is my +1
I also find it nicer when navigating using cd and tab in a unix shell anyway.
Planning to do it in 5.1 if everyone agree.
--
Thomas Mortagne
Hi devs,
While building the new signed script solution with Thomas, we have the need
to create a new kind of entity references for macros. This will allow us to
keep reference to signed macros.
Those references will have entityReference as parent, since macros may be
contained in document, but also in object properties. Currently we do not
need a syntax for those references, since these will only exists as
objects. So, no string serializer is planned.
So, we need to agree on creating macroReference that will have at this
point a unique identifier (to be discussed later) and a parent that could
be either a documentReference or an objectPropertyReference.
Here is my +1,
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
Hello,
Last year I worked for my master thesis on a integration between XWiki and
Activiti. Activiti is a popular open-source workflow execution engine. (
http://activiti.org/)
I'd like to commit my work so others can use and improve it.
For this, I'd like a repository called application-activiti for the source
code, and also a JIRA project called Activiti Application with the key
ACTIVITI.
Thanks in advance,
Sorin B.
Hi,
As part of the 6.0 Roadmap we have as entry the creation/integration of a
new Skin inside XWiki.
Currently there are 2 proposals for the new skin:
Flamingo http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Skin4x
Junco http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/JuncoSkin
= Similarities =
* Both skins have been done using the Twitter's Bootstrap framework (
http://getbootstrap.com)
* Both skin are thus responsive
= Differences =
* Flamingo is just a proposal, while Junco is an extension.
The difference is that while for Flamingo I have just a prototype, Junco is
functional and installable (with some integration problems/dependencies
discussed in another thread). The difference matter just from a development
time perspective (if we choose Flamingo it will take longer to implement).
* Flamingo provides a new look while Junco offers 'Themes', one of themes
being very similar to Colibri, see
http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Junco+Skin#HTheme:Coli…
This vote mail is about this difference. What to consider:
A. Freshness
Advantages of Flamingo is that its interface is centered around
Applications (it has a new left panel used for navigation). It will provide
a visual difference from Colibri and looks more similar to current
applications found in the wild.
Advantages of Junco is that it provides Themes. Junco's Themes are very
similar to our current ColorThemes, the difference is that they can change
also the font used, the colors and can also add some esthetic effects
(gradients, borders, shadows, etc. - CSS effects) to Bootstrap's components
(buttons, navbars, alerts, tables, etc.). But except minor changes, the
layout is similar to Colibri. Improvement consist in using refreshed style
for font, forms, buttons, messages, etc.
B. Extensions Integration
One of the reasons I choose to make Junco similar to Colibri was extensions
integration. The advantage of XWiki is that you can extend it how you like.
The problem is that because the extensions are developed by our community
(and not by a single entity) each application is providing it's own style.
On extensions.xwiki.org we have applications that provide an unique style,
while others are build around and for Colibri. Adding a new skin with a
different style (like Flamingo) will make current extensions not look
unitary. This problem is more general than just this Colibri/Junco/Flamingo
discussion and it the problem of having extensions that adapt to the skin
used (without creating special versions for each skin).
Junco was created to look similar to Colibri (preserving layout, style,
colors) while updating the 'back-end' (created on Bootstrap, it will put at
developer's disposal the Bootstrap's guide style and components). One of
the reasons we are having this extensions 'incompatibility' is because we
are lacking visual standards and guides (maybe using the ones provided by
Bootstrap can improve this area - I will send a separate mail about the CSS
Framework selection).
So from the style standards perspective having Junco integrated first could
represent a transition step between our current Colibri and a new skin with
a different look, because the developers might use Bootstrap
style/structure guides in their extension development (not guaranteed).
C. Parallel skin support
Another advantage of Junco is that (by having the same layout) is using the
same templates as Colibri. Having just a set of templates to maintain is
very important from a development perspective especially if your
development resources are limited. This is one of the reasons XWiki is not
supporting multiple default skins.
Flamingo will need some templates changed, so important from a development
time and maintenance perspective.
So this vote is about:
1. Keep Colibri's current look which is supported by the Junco skin, or
2. Have another look for 6.x which is proposed in the Flamingo skin
Thanks,
Caty