11 Aug
2009
11 Aug
'09
5:20 p.m.
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
+1
I'll move both of them now (formula and chart).
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu
wrote:
Should the formula macro be in the xwiki-formula module (as a sub
module for ex)? Or should it be in the rendering module? I think as we
progress through componentization it should be in xwiki-formula so
that we have self isolated modules that can be used as is. This would
remove deps between the rendering module and xwiki-formula for ex. So
as soon as a business domain materializes, everything related to that
domain should find its way inside the module for that domain IMO
ok I give in :)
so I would see:
xwiki-formula/
L– xwiki-formula-renderer
|_ xwiki-formula-macro
and
xwiki-chart/
|_ xwiki-chart-renderer
|_ xwiki-chart-macro
wdyt? Vincent Massol wrote:
I'd really prefer that we call it xwiki-formula
meaning that it
contains APIs for formula manipulation (even if right now the only
API we offer is one that generates an image). Same as we have xwiki-
chart for manipulating charts.
Rendering has a strong connotation in xwiki land. It means
http://code.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Modules/RenderingModule
+ the name is pretty long and ungainly (it seems nicer to me to keep
module names as short as possible)
After more thinking I don't think it fits as a Renderer since the
main idea of a Parser/Renderer is that you parse with any parser and
you're able to use any renderer. This wouldn't be the case here. On Aug 11, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu
wrote:
>> Q: Is the macro name appropriate? Do you know of a better one?
> Point taken: formula is better than equation. Actually, initially
> it
> was
> named "formula", but I didn't like it that much. Anyway, the
> community
> has spoken.
>
> Point not taken: rendering is the right name IMO. Before xwiki-
> rendering
> as a syntax converter, rendering has a widely accepted sense as
> generating raster graphics. From Wikipedia: "Rendering is the
> process of
> generating an image from a model, by means of computer programs".
> This
> is what the module does, and the fact that we have another thing
> called
> "rendering" doesn't mean that we must invent new names for
> something
> standard.
I'd agree to use rendering but *only* if:
* It's integrated inside the xwiki-rendering module
* It's implemented as a XWiki Parser and Renderer (and thus we
introduce a syntax for it)
I think it could fit well in the xwiki-rendering module. We'll
need to
adjust a few things (since it would be the first renderer to
generate
binary data) but that's a good thing.
WDYT?
Well, it doesn't actually do parsing or rendering. The code is really
small, and it just forwards the text to a service, which returns the
binary blob.
But I don't understand why do you insist on this conflict between
image
rendering and text rendering?