Hi, My only point to this discussion is that, as Thomas (I believe) already mentioned, since 7.2 spaces are deprecated. We can consider that the time in between (7.2-9.5) was more than enough for anyone still using spaces to migrate to Nested Pages (and the NP-based alternatives), this includes us doing the "deprecation" approach and keeping those pages. Now that the time has past, I believe it is safe to remove those pages and move forward. Otherwise, if we plan to support them even further, IMO, we`ll end up in a ridiculous situation, supporting code that has no value and that nobody should be using anymore. So I`m +1 for removing them. Thanks, Eduard On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On 23 May 2017, at 17:03, Marius Dumitru Florea < [email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On 23 May 2017, at 16:01, Marius Dumitru Florea < [email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On 23 May 2017, at 15:22, Marius Dumitru Florea < [email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Mortagne < [email protected]> wrote:
> I would be more in favor of moving them to some extension than can
be
> easily installed if really needed. >
+1 for moving to an extension that is not bundled by default.
Could you elaborate a bit? You’re ok to break existing users? What’s your rationale?
AFAIK the Extension Manager doesn't delete pages without asking you first so you can choose to keep these pages (when asked). And if you don't pay attention when upgrading then you can restore them from the recycle bin or install the dedicated extension.
Ok so you’re saying that users who upgrade will understand this and they’ll know what those technical pages do and thus they won’t let EM delete them or they’ll understand that they need to install some dedicated extension?
If they used these pages explicitly (e.g. adding the panel, including or linking etc.) then they probably know what those pages do, so they can decide whether to keep them or not.
If they used these pages indirectly, because these pages were exposed in the standard UI then: * if they didn't modify the standard pages then the UI will be updated * if they modified the standard pages then they get a merge conflict, where they can compare the previous version with the next version to see how the "deprecated" pages have been replaced.
I don’t think this is always true. For example imagine a user who created spaces with the Space Dashboard template. This created some home page in the space and those dashboard were using Main.Spaces (AFAIR).
This is an example of a non-default page but the user doesn’t master its content.
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Marius
I was leaning to the safer legacy approach. The only downside I can
think
of about it is that you may keep some pages in your wiki that are deprecated/not needed.
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Marius
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Marius
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]
> wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> We have this jira issue I created a while ago and I’d like to move > forward: >> https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13101 >> >> I have one question: >> Should we move the 4 pages into a legacy module in platform and bundle > it in XE or just remove them? >> >> My POV: >> We could consider the pages as APIs I guess and use the API strategy of > moving deprecated APIs to legacy. >> >> WDYT? >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne