9 Jan
2012
9 Jan
'12
12:10 a.m.
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.
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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
9 Jan
9 Jan
8:16 a.m.
+1
Thanks,
Marius
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
9:10 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
______________________________**_________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/ma…
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
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. 
9:47 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
Yes.
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?
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.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
17 Jan
17 Jan
3:33 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
This sounds good.
JV.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:10, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
+1
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.
3:48 p.m.
+1
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 15:33, Jean-Vincent Drean <jv(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
+1
the
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:10, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> 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 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.
This sounds good.
JV.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
9 Jan
9 Jan
9:30 a.m.
On Jan 9, 2012, at 12:10 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
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?
IMO we can do this any time in 4.x. I also agree that the first step is to extract the 1.0
syntax rendering into its own module ASAP (note: we need to keep velocity parsing in core
since it's still needed by templates and translations). Then when this is done and
when we don't have any XWiki Syntax 1.0 content in our default pages we release that
module on extensions.xwiki.org as an optional module.
Thanks
-Vincent
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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
9:50 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
Converter already exists but perfect conversion is neer to impossible
so I don't think we can really see this as a real solution.
Same as Denis, no need for any target IMO. Lets just remove it as soon
as it's possible to install and use it as pure extension.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
10 Jan
10 Jan
10:57 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 01:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
______________________________**_________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/ma…
11:20 a.m.
+1
Regards,
Sorin B.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 01:10, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
______________________________**_________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
11:42 a.m.
+1
Thanks,
Eduard
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Sorin Burjan <sorin.burjan(a)xwiki.com>wrote;wrote:
+1
Regards,
Sorin B.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
the
just
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 01:10, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> 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 > 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 a
_______________________________________________
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
syntax migrator that can be used for an automatic
conversion to a newer
syntax, without actually providing rendering support for it.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
______________________________**_________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
11:20 a.m.
+1
Caleb
On 01/08/2012 06:10 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
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.
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.
18 Jan
18 Jan
2:41 p.m.
Hello,
+1
Raluca.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
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.
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.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
______________________________**_________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/ma…
4678
days inactive
4688
days old
13 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Denis Gervalle -
Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) -
Eduard Moraru -
Jean-Vincent Drean -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Raluca Stavro -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Sorin Burjan -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol