8 Jun
2005
8 Jun
'05
3:38 a.m.
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:02:36 +0200, Ludovic Dubost <ludovic(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
So the 5% errors is not that bad.. With network tools
I
think we can improve the model. The good thing about programming in
XWiki is that you can have much more easily experienced people review
what end-users have done. People that have the content knowledge can
more easily share the work with people that are the programmers. They
can work together in the same tool.. This is not the case of the more
classical approach of separating application design from application
usage.
Can't have 5% errors in exam result data. You wouldn't implement a
spreadsheet without testing it.
CMS is different and complementary to Wikis.. Now you
can do it both ways.. Implement some sort of validation in a Wiki..
Implement soem sort of Wiki in a CMS.. You can also keep the tools
separate.. and integrate them using a portal (XWiki can be integrated in
eXo and soon JBoss Portal).
The portal route was my conclusion but I'm working with the Cocoon portlet
server.
Yes.. I've been relunctant to build a roadmap
because there wasn't the
actual critical mass to implement it.. I tend to view a roadmap
something on whcih we would commit.. Now we could do some sort of
tentative roadmap without dates showing our priorities..
That would be great, I'm sure everyone would really appreciate your
architectural vision without obligation :-).
Thanks for the, as always enlightening comments.
Jim