29 Aug
2016
29 Aug
'16
11:03 a.m.
Paul, your comment makes me think about https://xkcd.com/927/ :)
Now, as far as I can see, all the previous attempts where made by
individuals. Nothing have been really discussed and designed by the whole
team. Which is why I believe this new attempt could be the good one.
Moreover, Vincent is not starting form scratch but on the Fabio's project.
We only need to make some improvements on it.
About my expectations:
* I need a format that gives the same result when I export my content after
having imported it (bijection).
* I would prefer having it respecting the Nested Page hierarchy (ie: no
space concept).
* Easy to edit with whatever text editor. Maybe using a correct suffix to
enable the syntax highlighting easily: for example I usually edit my
content inside a file holding the ".vm" extension so my editor knows I will
write some Velocity code in it.
I never write code from scratch in my file system. But if I had to, I
suppose the hierarchy that Vincent suggests would be too complex. It might
be a problem for the developers who have written XFF and the NodeJs tools
which have code to be imported in XWiki, but does not have output filter
now.
Thanks,
2016-08-27 11:38 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>et>:
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
On 27 Aug 2016, at 11:15, Paul Libbrecht
<paul(a)hoplahup.net> wrote:
Vincent Massol wrote:
> I think a first step is agreeing on the best representation and one we
would
agree on.
Allow me a process comment: I think that this is
the right way to start
yet another representation project, it would be the fifth project.
Sure but that’s my right! Why would you be allowed to do that (and even
complained when I told you that one option for you would have been to
continue the existing XFF work!) and not me? :) lol
Now what you say is not true either. I’m not starting from scratch
(contrary to you - I don’t remember seeing a mail from you explaining why
the existing solutions did not work for you and with precise details and
why you’ve started a new project based on xinclude). I’ve taken xwikifs and
tried to build on it.
I’ve taken the time (did you?) to:
- analyze all the solution I’ve found (see my other mails)
- mention the limitation and problems of each (see my other mails)
TBH I’m quite disappointed for your lack of consideration. You started a
mail thread and I spent a lot of hours yesterday (and a lot of off work
hours too) to catch up on the topic… We just have a different approach.
Your approach is NIH (and FTR I’m not against NIH). My approach is to
analyze all the work that was already done and see their limitations and
what more we’d need.
Now as I mentioned already (did you take the time to read the mails I sent
yesterday? :)) I don’t see your solution as a competitor to the other
projects. So don’t worry. BTW would be nice if you could answer the
proposals I’ve made to try to fix your solution which doesn’t work well
enough ATM for round-tripping (basic need of the xwiki dev team).
Here,
we want to find something more conclusive, or?
“we”: I don’t know. I speak only for myself.
I find it more important that people express
their:
- experience
- expectations
- disappointments
...of the current representations of XWiki content and code stores.
So you clearly haven’t read the mails I sent yesterday because this is
exactly what I’ve done…
Now nothing is exclusive. We do need a common agreed FS representation
anyway for the future. It doesn’t prevent people from expressing their
opinions on the 3 points you mention above.
Thanks
-Vincent
Paul
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs