On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:00 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: All these use cases are covered by both A and B so it doesn't help me choose one or the other. My question is more how to implement these use cases: using A or B?

> Thanks > -Vincent > > On 11 Jan 2016 at 12:31:12, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) > wrote: > > > Hi devs, > > > > I'm working on integrating CKEditor in XWiki and I'm wondering how the > Edit > > menu should reflect the fact that there are multiple editors available. I > > see two options: > > > > (A) List all the available content editors in the Edit menu (note that > the > > menu is visible only for advanced users). E.g. Wiki, GWT WYSIWYG, > CKEditor > > > > PROS: > > * easier to implement (because there is already an UIX for this) > > * easier to discover new content editors (e.g. after an admin installs an > > extension that provides a content editor) > > * ability to try a different content editor than the one configured (i.e. > > without updating the configuration) > > > > CONS: > > * the (advanced) user might not know, at first, which content editor to > > choose from the Edit menu > > * once the user has a preferred editor the other content editor entries > > become noise (the user may want to hide them) > > > > (B) List only the edit modes in the Edit menu. E.g. Wiki, WYSIWYG > > > > PROS: > > * easier to choose the edit mode (wiki/source vs. WYSIWYG) > > * less crowded Edit menu (easier to scan, no noise) > > > > CONS: > > * the user needs to edit his profile to discover the available editors > for > > Wiki/WYSIWYG modes > > * harder to try the new content editors (you need to update the > > configuration) > > > > Let's see what we need for each option: > > > > (A) Needs: > > * UIX in the Edit menu (already available) > > * 1 configuration option ("editing.content.defaultEditor") to configure > the > > default editor (at farm/wiki/space/user level). We can probably extend > the > > "Default editor to use" preference from the user profile to show all the > > available content editors. > > > > (B) Needs: > > * 3 configuration options: > > ** default edit mode (Wiki vs. WYSIWYG), already available in the user > > profile > > ** default Wiki mode editor (only one editor for now so we can skip it) > > ** default WYSIWYG mode editor (GWT-based vs. CKEditor) > > > > I'm leaning towards option (A). WDYT? > > > > Thanks, > > Marius

Hi, I prefer B: I prefer to have things simpler for the user, while providing power to the administrator. There can be multiple extensions that integrate themselves inside that menu (like the real-time editor) but I don't see that as a benefit for the user, but more confusing about all the types of editors. We already have 3 modes: WYSIWYG, Wiki, Inline + Objects + Class .... we need to find ways to simplify that, rather than adding more things in the menu (even if only for advanced users). The administrator should select the preferred editor from Configuration - Edit Mode Settings - Editor - Default Editor (for the farm or per wiki). The user will use the default value provided by admin or overwrite it from his User Preferences (if he is advanced and knows about the existence of multiple editors). By default we should select the recommended editor to be used and this should be changed just in exceptional / desired cases. Having multiple editors available is not something a normal user would care about and doesn't provide additional/different benefits for the user. Important is to provide the best tool by default. When adding the CKEditor first you will need to configure the wiki in order to use it. After a testing period we can change the default editor if we'd like. Off topic: I think that the Page syntax preference in the Document Information should be removed. There are not that many variations between 2.0 and 2.1 and I don't see why a normal user would care or want to chance the syntax. The users should rely on the default/recommended and the default is configured from Administration. Comment A: "GWT WYSIWYG" that would look super cryptic :) Thanks, Caty On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:

Note that if the admin doesn’t want to show multiple editors to its user, he should not install multiple editors either :) (ofc there’s a problem right now in that the current editor is not an extension that you can uninstall). For advanced users, I still think it’s best to show all the active editors (in addition to the default which is set by the admin - We could have “(Default)” next to it in the menu. With UC3 the admin can decide whether he wants to make only 1 editor avail or several. 

Thanks -Vincent On 11 Jan 2016 at 14:52:46, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) (valicac@gmail.com(mailto:valicac@gmail.com)) wrote: > Hi, > > I prefer B: I prefer to have things simpler for the user, while providing > power to the administrator. > > There can be multiple extensions that integrate themselves inside that menu > (like the real-time editor) but I don't see that as a benefit for the user, > but more confusing about all the types of editors. > > We already have 3 modes: WYSIWYG, Wiki, Inline + Objects + Class .... we > need to find ways to simplify that, rather than adding more things in the > menu (even if only for advanced users). > > The administrator should select the preferred editor from Configuration - > Edit Mode Settings - Editor - Default Editor (for the farm or per wiki). > The user will use the default value provided by admin or overwrite it from > his User Preferences (if he is advanced and knows about the existence of > multiple editors). > By default we should select the recommended editor to be used and this > should be changed just in exceptional / desired cases. > > Having multiple editors available is not something a normal user would care > about and doesn't provide additional/different benefits for the user. > Important is to provide the best tool by default. > > When adding the CKEditor first you will need to configure the wiki in order > to use it. After a testing period we can change the default editor if we'd > like. > > Off topic: I think that the Page syntax preference in the Document > Information should be removed. There are not that many variations between > 2.0 and 2.1 and I don't see why a normal user would care or want to chance > the syntax. The users should rely on the default/recommended and the > default is configured from Administration. > > Comment A: "GWT WYSIWYG" that would look super cryptic :) > > Thanks, > Caty > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, vincent(a)massol.net > wrote: > > > > > > > On 11 Jan 2016 at 14:16:40, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > > mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:00 PM, vincent(a)massol.net > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Marius, > > > > > > > > I prefer to think in term of use cases. Here are the ones I see as > > > > important on this topic and that I think we need to ensure that we > > > > implement: > > > > > > > > UC1: Ability for admins to install an extension that contributes a new > > > > editor > > > > UC2: Ability for admins to select which editor is the default editor > > for > > > > their users in a given wiki (note that ideally this configuration > > should be > > > > per wiki for the farm use case) > > > > UC3: Ability for admins to decide which editors are active (i.e. which > > > > editors users will be able to configure or use). For example it should > > be > > > > possible to completely replace the GWT-based WYSIWYG by CKEeditor and > > > > preventing any user from using the GWT-based WYSIWYG editor. > > > > UC4: Ability for a user (simple or advanced) to explicitly decide which > > > > default editors he/she’ll use (in his/her user profile probably). > > Should > > > > override the editor selected in UC2 (but they should only see editors > > that > > > > are active, cf UC3) > > > > UC5: Ability for an advanced user to choose on the spot (on-demand) the > > > > editor to use to edit a given page, bypassing the default editor. > > Should > > > > override the editor selected in UC4. > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > All these use cases are covered by both A and B so it doesn't help me > > > choose one or the other. My question is more how to implement these use > > > cases: using A or B? > > > > Ok cool if they’re covered by A and B (it wasn’t mentioned in your email…). > > > > Note that currently there’s no default choice anymore for advanced users > > when they edit a page and we’d need to put that back (that’s UC4). > > > > Apart from this, I think I prefer A) than B). > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > On 11 Jan 2016 at 12:31:12, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > > > > mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on integrating CKEditor in XWiki and I'm wondering how > > the > > > > Edit > > > > > menu should reflect the fact that there are multiple editors > > available. I > > > > > see two options: > > > > > > > > > > (A) List all the available content editors in the Edit menu (note > > that > > > > the > > > > > menu is visible only for advanced users). E.g. Wiki, GWT WYSIWYG, > > > > CKEditor > > > > > > > > > > PROS: > > > > > * easier to implement (because there is already an UIX for this) > > > > > * easier to discover new content editors (e.g. after an admin > > installs an > > > > > extension that provides a content editor) > > > > > * ability to try a different content editor than the one configured > > (i.e. > > > > > without updating the configuration) > > > > > > > > > > CONS: > > > > > * the (advanced) user might not know, at first, which content editor > > to > > > > > choose from the Edit menu > > > > > * once the user has a preferred editor the other content editor > > entries > > > > > become noise (the user may want to hide them) > > > > > > > > > > (B) List only the edit modes in the Edit menu. E.g. Wiki, WYSIWYG > > > > > > > > > > PROS: > > > > > * easier to choose the edit mode (wiki/source vs. WYSIWYG) > > > > > * less crowded Edit menu (easier to scan, no noise) > > > > > > > > > > CONS: > > > > > * the user needs to edit his profile to discover the available > > editors > > > > for > > > > > Wiki/WYSIWYG modes > > > > > * harder to try the new content editors (you need to update the > > > > > configuration) > > > > > > > > > > Let's see what we need for each option: > > > > > > > > > > (A) Needs: > > > > > * UIX in the Edit menu (already available) > > > > > * 1 configuration option ("editing.content.defaultEditor") to > > configure > > > > the > > > > > default editor (at farm/wiki/space/user level). We can probably > > extend > > > > the > > > > > "Default editor to use" preference from the user profile to show all > > the > > > > > available content editors. > > > > > > > > > > (B) Needs: > > > > > * 3 configuration options: > > > > > ** default edit mode (Wiki vs. WYSIWYG), already available in the > > user > > > > > profile > > > > > ** default Wiki mode editor (only one editor for now so we can skip > > it) > > > > > ** default WYSIWYG mode editor (GWT-based vs. CKEditor) > > > > > > > > > > I'm leaning towards option (A). WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Marius > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > devs(a)xwiki.org > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > devs(a)xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:09 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: (mailto: go The purpose of users is to get the job done, not test and experiment with different editors. Thanks, Caty valicac(a)gmail.com that this would mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com contributes configuration (i.e. probably). editor. help wondering editor available the probably can _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi, I prefer B: I prefer to have things simpler for the user, while providing power to the administrator. There can be multiple extensions that integrate themselves inside that menu (like the real-time editor) but I don't see that as a benefit for the user, but more confusing about all the types of editors. We already have 3 modes: WYSIWYG, Wiki, Inline + Objects + Class .... we need to find ways to simplify that, rather than adding more things in the menu (even if only for advanced users).

The administrator should select the preferred editor from Configuration - Edit Mode Settings - Editor - Default Editor (for the farm or per wiki). The user will use the default value provided by admin or overwrite it from his User Preferences (if he is advanced and knows about the existence of multiple editors). By default we should select the recommended editor to be used and this should be changed just in exceptional / desired cases.

Having multiple editors available is not something a normal user would care about and doesn't provide additional/different benefits for the user. Important is to provide the best tool by default. When adding the CKEditor first you will need to configure the wiki in order to use it. After a testing period we can change the default editor if we'd like. Off topic: I think that the Page syntax preference in the Document Information should be removed. There are not that many variations between 2.0 and 2.1 and I don't see why a normal user would care or want to chance the syntax. The users should rely on the default/recommended and the default is configured from Administration. Comment A: "GWT WYSIWYG" that would look super cryptic :) Thanks, Caty On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: new which should which the email…). )) editor all _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < valicac(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: As I said in my initial mail, if we choose B then we need multiple configuration properties, not just one: * when you choose "Wiki" (edit mode) from the Edit menu, XWiki will have to see what editor is the default Wiki editor (Standard Wiki Editor, Real-time Wiki Editor) * when you choose "WYSIWYG" (edit mode) from the Edit menu, XWiki will have to see what editor is the default WYSIWYG editor (Standard WYSIWYG Editor, CKEditor, Real-time WYSIWYG Editor) * when you choose "Edit" (default edit action) from the Edit menu, XWiki will have to see what is the default edit mode, and then see what is the default editor for that mode. An administrator/user will have to configure this. What I don't like at B is that it's hard to discover new editors. What I don't like at A is that the entry name that will appear in the Edit menu can be cryptic (e.g. I not sure how to name the current WYSIWYG editor, that's why I put "GWT WYSIWYG" but it's obviously not good).

Thanks, Marius > > Having multiple editors available is not something a normal user would care > about and doesn't provide additional/different benefits for the user. > Important is to provide the best tool by default. > > When adding the CKEditor first you will need to configure the wiki in order > to use it. After a testing period we can change the default editor if we'd > like. > > Off topic: I think that the Page syntax preference in the Document > Information should be removed. There are not that many variations between > 2.0 and 2.1 and I don't see why a normal user would care or want to chance > the syntax. The users should rely on the default/recommended and the > default is configured from Administration. > > Comment A: "GWT WYSIWYG" that would look super cryptic :) > > Thanks, > Caty > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, vincent(a)massol.net > wrote: > > > > > > > On 11 Jan 2016 at 14:16:40, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > > mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:00 PM, vincent(a)massol.net > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Marius, > > > > > > > > I prefer to think in term of use cases. Here are the ones I see as > > > > important on this topic and that I think we need to ensure that we > > > > implement: > > > > > > > > UC1: Ability for admins to install an extension that contributes a > new > > > > editor > > > > UC2: Ability for admins to select which editor is the default editor > > for > > > > their users in a given wiki (note that ideally this configuration > > should be > > > > per wiki for the farm use case) > > > > UC3: Ability for admins to decide which editors are active (i.e. > which > > > > editors users will be able to configure or use). For example it > should > > be > > > > possible to completely replace the GWT-based WYSIWYG by CKEeditor and > > > > preventing any user from using the GWT-based WYSIWYG editor. > > > > UC4: Ability for a user (simple or advanced) to explicitly decide > which > > > > default editors he/she’ll use (in his/her user profile probably). > > Should > > > > override the editor selected in UC2 (but they should only see editors > > that > > > > are active, cf UC3) > > > > UC5: Ability for an advanced user to choose on the spot (on-demand) > the > > > > editor to use to edit a given page, bypassing the default editor. > > Should > > > > override the editor selected in UC4. > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > All these use cases are covered by both A and B so it doesn't help me > > > choose one or the other. My question is more how to implement these use > > > cases: using A or B? > > > > Ok cool if they’re covered by A and B (it wasn’t mentioned in your > email…). > > > > Note that currently there’s no default choice anymore for advanced users > > when they edit a page and we’d need to put that back (that’s UC4). > > > > Apart from this, I think I prefer A) than B). > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > On 11 Jan 2016 at 12:31:12, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > > > > mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com > )) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on integrating CKEditor in XWiki and I'm wondering how > > the > > > > Edit > > > > > menu should reflect the fact that there are multiple editors > > available. I > > > > > see two options: > > > > > > > > > > (A) List all the available content editors in the Edit menu (note > > that > > > > the > > > > > menu is visible only for advanced users). E.g. Wiki, GWT WYSIWYG, > > > > CKEditor > > > > > > > > > > PROS: > > > > > * easier to implement (because there is already an UIX for this) > > > > > * easier to discover new content editors (e.g. after an admin > > installs an > > > > > extension that provides a content editor) > > > > > * ability to try a different content editor than the one configured > > (i.e. > > > > > without updating the configuration) > > > > > > > > > > CONS: > > > > > * the (advanced) user might not know, at first, which content > editor > > to > > > > > choose from the Edit menu > > > > > * once the user has a preferred editor the other content editor > > entries > > > > > become noise (the user may want to hide them) > > > > > > > > > > (B) List only the edit modes in the Edit menu. E.g. Wiki, WYSIWYG > > > > > > > > > > PROS: > > > > > * easier to choose the edit mode (wiki/source vs. WYSIWYG) > > > > > * less crowded Edit menu (easier to scan, no noise) > > > > > > > > > > CONS: > > > > > * the user needs to edit his profile to discover the available > > editors > > > > for > > > > > Wiki/WYSIWYG modes > > > > > * harder to try the new content editors (you need to update the > > > > > configuration) > > > > > > > > > > Let's see what we need for each option: > > > > > > > > > > (A) Needs: > > > > > * UIX in the Edit menu (already available) > > > > > * 1 configuration option ("editing.content.defaultEditor") to > > configure > > > > the > > > > > default editor (at farm/wiki/space/user level). We can probably > > extend > > > > the > > > > > "Default editor to use" preference from the user profile to show > all > > the > > > > > available content editors. > > > > > > > > > > (B) Needs: > > > > > * 3 configuration options: > > > > > ** default edit mode (Wiki vs. WYSIWYG), already available in the > > user > > > > > profile > > > > > ** default Wiki mode editor (only one editor for now so we can skip > > it) > > > > > ** default WYSIWYG mode editor (GWT-based vs. CKEditor) > > > > > > > > > > I'm leaning towards option (A). WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Marius

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: There is, http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Features/PageEditing#HAdvancedMode . The first entry in the Edit menu is "Edit" which leads to the default edit mode. Of course, it's not as in Colibri, you still need to open the menu.

> Apart from this, I think I prefer A) than B). > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > > On 11 Jan 2016 at 12:31:12, Marius Dumitru Florea ( > > > mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > I'm working on integrating CKEditor in XWiki and I'm wondering how > the > > > Edit > > > > menu should reflect the fact that there are multiple editors > available. I > > > > see two options: > > > > > > > > (A) List all the available content editors in the Edit menu (note > that > > > the > > > > menu is visible only for advanced users). E.g. Wiki, GWT WYSIWYG, > > > CKEditor > > > > > > > > PROS: > > > > * easier to implement (because there is already an UIX for this) > > > > * easier to discover new content editors (e.g. after an admin > installs an > > > > extension that provides a content editor) > > > > * ability to try a different content editor than the one configured > (i.e. > > > > without updating the configuration) > > > > > > > > CONS: > > > > * the (advanced) user might not know, at first, which content editor > to > > > > choose from the Edit menu > > > > * once the user has a preferred editor the other content editor > entries > > > > become noise (the user may want to hide them) > > > > > > > > (B) List only the edit modes in the Edit menu. E.g. Wiki, WYSIWYG > > > > > > > > PROS: > > > > * easier to choose the edit mode (wiki/source vs. WYSIWYG) > > > > * less crowded Edit menu (easier to scan, no noise) > > > > > > > > CONS: > > > > * the user needs to edit his profile to discover the available > editors > > > for > > > > Wiki/WYSIWYG modes > > > > * harder to try the new content editors (you need to update the > > > > configuration) > > > > > > > > Let's see what we need for each option: > > > > > > > > (A) Needs: > > > > * UIX in the Edit menu (already available) > > > > * 1 configuration option ("editing.content.defaultEditor") to > configure > > > the > > > > default editor (at farm/wiki/space/user level). We can probably > extend > > > the > > > > "Default editor to use" preference from the user profile to show all > the > > > > available content editors. > > > > > > > > (B) Needs: > > > > * 3 configuration options: > > > > ** default edit mode (Wiki vs. WYSIWYG), already available in the > user > > > > profile > > > > ** default Wiki mode editor (only one editor for now so we can skip > it) > > > > ** default WYSIWYG mode editor (GWT-based vs. CKEditor) > > > > > > > > I'm leaning towards option (A). WDYT? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marius

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: While discussing with Caty and Edy on this topic, Caty suggested another option: (C) Replace "Wiki" and "WYSIWYG" entries with a *single* entry "Content", i.e. show only one entry in the Edit menu for editing the document content. This is consistent with the existing entries "Access Rights", "Objects", "Class". PROS * simplified and consistent Edit menu * easier to implement than B (similar difficulty as A probably) CONS * the user needs to edit his profile to discover the available editors: Wiki, WYSIWYG, CKEditor, Real-time etc. * harder to try the new content editors (you need to update the configuration) * the developers will complain there's no direct link to Wiki editor (which loads faster) but they can always configure their profile. Moreover, the current WYSIWYG editor and the CKEditor offers a way to edit the source, it's just that you need to wait longer for the editor to load (because the editor is heavier). (C) Needs: * 1 configuration option ("editing.content.defaultEditor") to configure the default editor (at farm/wiki/space/user level). We can probably extend the "Default editor to use" preference from the user profile to show all the available content editors.

I'm ok with both A and C. Thanks, Marius _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On 12 Jan 2016 at 07:30:34, Marius Dumitru Florea ( mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote: the CKEditor an (i.e. for content. (which the At the very least, in this solution each available editor should have a keyboard shortcut. I’m not fond of this option for advanced users (it’s ok for simple users).

It’s already a major PITA to switch on/off hidden docs, and I can imagine the same hassle for switching editors. As an advanced user, I constantly switch editors (wiki, wysiwyg). The shortcuts may offer a good-enough alternative but it means each editor extension would need to come with a shortcut (or have some generic 3-letter shortcuts such as ctrl + E + 1 for editor 1, ctrl + E + 2 for editor 2, etc) and this is not that easy. Note that this issue with shortcuts also exists in the other solutions (A). Thanks -Vincent extend all the the _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Caty, On 12 Jan 2016 at 15:53:35, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) (valicac(a)gmail.com (mailto:valicac@gmail.com)) wrote: the that installs editor to entries editors another "Content", "Objects", editors: the source, (because users). http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/UserRoles/developer… ) we So basically this would mean having a configuration option to allow to choose between A) and C). Some remarks: * We should not mix “developers” with “advanced user”. I can’t see on the screenshot the various profile values. Is there an “Advanced User” profile? * The problem will be the same IMO since we’d need to define a default for the “Extra Editor Modes” property for the “developer” profile: ** If it’s “true” by default then we have A) by default. It allows advanced users who don’t want to see several editors to not see them (i.e. C)) ** If it’s “false” by default then we have C) by default and we loose discoverability and advanced would need to turn it on to see several editors (i.e. A)). At this point in time I have the feeling this config option would be overkill. We should choose between A) and C). Could you explain again why you think that advanced users should not see all the available editors? On my side, it seems logical that if there are multiple editors available (i.e. set as available by the admin) then advanced users should see them by default. Let’s see what others think. Thanks -Vincent imagine constantly a for (A). configure show user skip it) configure extend the _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs