[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Mark the xwiki/1.0 syntax as deprecated
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/
+1 Thanks, Marius On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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.
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
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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.
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?
Yes.
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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
+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.
This sounds good. JV.
+1 On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 15:33, Jean-Vincent Drean <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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
+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.
This sounds good.
JV. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO
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/
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 01:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
+1 Regards, Sorin B. On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 01:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<; http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
+1 Thanks, Eduard On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Sorin Burjan <[email protected]>wrote:
+1
Regards, Sorin B.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 01:10, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<; http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
+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.
Hello, +1 Raluca. On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs>
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