9 Jan
2012
9 Jan
'12
9:31 a.m.
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:10, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
That's a good idea too. This is true more generally: we need to start adding required
dependencies to extensions.
Thomas, do we already have an XObject for dependencies on e.x.o? Does it already work?
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi devs,
Since a long time ago, the xwiki/1.0 syntax has been deprecated in favor
of the new rendering engine and the 2.x syntaxes, but this has never been
declared deprecated formally. We should:
* mark the syntax as deprecated in the UI (like 2.1 was marked
experimental in the syntax choice dropdown)
* deprecate classes and methods that deal only with the old syntax
* push more for migrating all documents to the 2.1 syntax; the biggest
troublemaker is the statistics application
Here's my +1.
+1
We should also decide on a timeline for the
complete removal of the 1.0
syntax. Is that something we want to do? Provided we manage to migrate all
the official documents and some major contributed applications during the
4.x cycle, is XWiki 5.0 a good target? We should package the support for
xwiki/1.0 as an optional extension installable using the extension manager,
so that people can upgrade from older versions. Or we could package just a
syntax migrator that can be used for an automatic conversion to a newer
syntax, without actually providing rendering support for it.
As soon as we are satisfied with the extension manager, and installing the
1.0 syntax could be done simply using it, couldn't we simply properly
repackage extensions using the 1.0 syntax to depends on it ? This could
permit to remove it earlier from the distribution.