19 Jun
2005
19 Jun
'05
2:48 p.m.
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:59:38 +0200, Ludovic Dubost <ludovic(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Do you have a preference between publishing
intellij and or eclipse models
or exporting them to xwiki as graphviz or jpeg or what?
Indeed but it just you package relations from your engine diagram. How it
fits with road map, faq, jira etc I'll spend some time working out.
As before just your top level engine diagram.
For anyone who might want to work on the text use cases, Scott Ambler has
standard templates free for use and download for use cases, test case,
business rules, change request etc on his site at:
http://www.ronin-intl.com/downloads/
Cheers
Jim
Currently we are maintaining compatibility with
IntelliJ and Eclipse +
building with ant for the automated build. We are looking at maven or
maven2 for future automated build.
We have an open source licence for XWiki developpement for IntelliJ. I
still prefer IntelliJ because of productivity reasons (I even payed my
licence before they created the open source program).
How do we download an open source version of IntelliJ?
> If we were round-trip engineering then there would
be a question to
> discuss about diagram import/export between tools.
Stupid me. We have the source code and that can squirt the format of any
modelling tool. We don't need to import or export diagrams from different
modelling tools which should (joke) all produce the same result from the
same source. We just have to decide how to share and use them. Do you have
a preference between publishing intellij and or eclipse models or
exporting them to xwiki as graphviz or jpeg or what?
__DevUC__1 Publish UML models
If we want to import other people's models then we would have to put both
intellij and eclipse models in subversion. The common source would keep
them in synch. If round-trip is adopted then all developers
You're
current class diagrams are jpegs. We have Graphviz as a built
in tool.
WDYT?
I've very open to that.. I don't have much experience on this so I would
need help setting up things like that. I'm currently pushing the javadoc and junit
results on the automated
build platform:
See http://build.xpertnet.biz/doc/
+1
In this case we probably need some
"automated" copy when we release a
offline wiki database. Thanks to Jeremi's work, we might be able to
package the documentation as an XWiki Application which would mean we
could also upgrade them.
>> Now I think we should move the documentation to the xwiki.org web site
>> in a specific area. Using some XWiki classes, we can mark the
>> documentation articles that are specific to XWiki.com.
+1
>> We can definitively open the default wiki to
developer's editing so
>> that
>> people can contribute to it's improvement. We can then have an
>> automated
>> export to XML so that we can release it on ObjectWeb regularly.
+1
>> Documentation is a weak part of XWiki. We are
definitively looking for
>> people that can help in this area.
I'll continue with use cases then.
I have started listing some of the use cases. They appear to start
something like:
__UC__1. Render XWiki Documents
__UC__1. Verify Authorisation and Rights
__UC__1. Read Documents
__UC__1. Access and Modify Documents, Objects
__UC__1. Search Documents and Objects
__UC__1. Read User and Rights
__UC__1. Read/Write Object/Classes
Is that for user doc or developer doc ? It could actually apply to both..
For users then the next step is: comments,
attachements, versioning,
interact with specific applications
For developers then the next step is: Create forms,
create templates,
access priviledged API, create macros & functions, write plugins
Will integrate
these into user, dev and common threads.
There are plenty turning up nearly every day on Jira but they are
technical.
IMHO The current (largely implicit) business use case hierarchy
doesn't quite seem abstract enough or explicitly and correctly
nested. It just seems that way, I have no examples cos I'm talking
about a missing level or lack of separation of levels.
Are you talking about the FAQ, Jira, the web site ? For the FAQ we start
to have a good number of documents.
Agreed
Indeed we can start reorganizing,
nesting, etc..
+1
It's part of the plan to redo the web site (both
XWiki.com which should show the business value of XWiki and xwiki.org
which should help user's and developer's find everything they need and
allow them to interact.
Great.
IMHO The
classes seem too large to me and seems to mix model content
and model management functions in the same class.
Is that unfair?
It's probably not that good to mix that.. That will probably need some
refactoring for XWiki 2.0. It's going to be tough to fix that for the
first release.