5 Sep
2016
5 Sep
'16
4:45 p.m.
On 05 Sep 2016, at 16:42, Paul Libbrecht
<paul(a)hoplahup.net> wrote:
ok, so that's deterministic at
least (but sometimes too much?)
Also, how do you determine the extension ? (seems like the object nature
would dictate that...).
Mmh, here I am really not convinced.
I've seen many pages be only designed to be used using
parseGroovyFromPage. Is this something that is deprecated now?
you’re probably talking about XWiki Syntax 1.0 but even that was wiki markup not groovy
(you had to use <% …. %> ).
>>> So I guess what I’m saying is that for me what would help the most the
current workflow used by the xwiki core dev team is:
>>> * the introduction of the xar:fetch and xar:deploy mojos
>>> * the validation (to help prevent mistakes)
>>> * the extraction of the attachments as standard files on the file system so
that they can be replaced easily
> Plus at least extract the JS-extensions and CSS-extensions as JS and CSS
> files at least or?
Yes those are content for me (what I meant by content is
doc content + all xproperties of type textarea). > And
the same holds for velocity and groovy code or?
> But here, I cannot find a way that would make it clear that a given
> object property or page content is in velocity, groovy, or xxxx.
> Is there a way?
They’re not in groovy or velocity, they’re in some markup
syntax (e.g. XWiki Syntax 2.1). I've also seen velocity-based content to be the
core of the UI of most
applications and be contained in the content of pages.
That’s in vm files, not wiki pages.
From the description you make, the files would not be
.vm or .groovy
(actually, there would be none, right?) but using some
wiki-syntax-extension. Right?
To me, it seems like having .vm and .grv or .groovy files is essential.
I would be alone?
Thanks
-Vincent
Paul