Hi Vincent,
We had already talk in the past about that matters. Globally, what you
proposed seems good and really honest.
But until we see a real implementation, it is difficult to know if it could
have or not a negative effect on the way the product is seen by open-source
adepts.
I completely
Hi
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Anamaria Stoica anam.sto...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
mariusdumitru.flo...@xwiki.com wrote:
Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea
The fact that it uses translations with the panels.* prefix is wrong,
we need to use a core.search.* (or platform.search.* ?) prefix for the
text in the header.
About the label itself having a voice reader reading search query to
describe the input is better than search, WDYT ?
Any other opinions
On Dec 15, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 20:39, Thomas Mortagne
thomas.morta...@xwiki.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 19:02, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net
wrote:
On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 15:40,
Hi devs,
We need to decide if we want to keep the current:
ResourceName, DocumentName, SpaceName, WikiName, AttachmentName
or instead use a variation.
There are 2 things to decide:
- The prefix for the base object (Resource, Item, Model, etc)
- The suffix (Name, Path, Reference, etc)
Proposal
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Guillaume Lerouge guilla...@xwiki.comwrote:
Hi
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Anamaria Stoica anam.sto...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
mariusdumitru.flo...@xwiki.com wrote:
Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 13:57, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 18:39, Thomas Mortagne
thomas.morta...@xwiki.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 15:40, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Anamaria Stoica anam.sto...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Guillaume Lerouge guilla...@xwiki.com
wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Anamaria Stoica anam.sto...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Marius
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 13:35, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
On Dec 15, 2009, at 9:01 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 20:39, Thomas Mortagne
thomas.morta...@xwiki.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 19:02, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net
wrote:
On Dec 15,
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Fabio Mancinelli wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Proposal
===
I'd like to propose ModelReference for the base object and then
DocumentReference, SpaceReference, WikiReference,
AttachmentReference.
Note: This is different from
On Dec 17, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 12/17/2009 01:54 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi devs,
We need to decide if we want to keep the current:
ResourceName, DocumentName, SpaceName, WikiName, AttachmentName
or instead use
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Fabio Mancinelli wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Proposal
===
I'd like to propose ModelReference for the base object and then
DocumentReference, SpaceReference,
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 15:38, Vincent Massol vinc...@massol.net wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 12/17/2009 01:54 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi devs,
We need to decide if we want to keep the current:
Hi,
We'd have:
Entity
EntityReference
EntityType
EntityReferenceFactory, EntityReferenceSerializer
I think I prefer it slighty more than Resource. What do others think?
For me Entity sounds little bit too generic. I'd prefer Resource
instead. A Resource implies I can use it for something
On Dec 17, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Asiri Rathnayake wrote:
Hi,
We'd have:
Entity
EntityReference
EntityType
EntityReferenceFactory, EntityReferenceSerializer
I think I prefer it slighty more than Resource. What do others think?
For me Entity sounds little bit too generic. I'd prefer
Hi Vincent,
Well Entity is pretty common in modeling (see http://bit.ly/5r2Liw)
Also it's used in Entity Bean (Java EE) and is defined as:
An entity bean represents a business object in a persistent storage
mechanism. Some examples of business objects are customers, orders,
and products
Hi,
Big +1 for getUUID() and storing UUID as byte[] and returning java.util.UUID
Storage as byte[] will improve db load times.
Whatever you like for a name is fine for me but I would caution against over
generic words such as Model, Context, Factory, and Manager because
when I first began
If you look in semantic web definitions, the difference between an entity
and a resource is really hard to tell:)
Entity seems to be the most generic word to describe something that exists
or has existed.
On wikipedia, i found this definition:
A *resource* is any physical or virtual entity of
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 12/17/2009 09:31 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
Hi,
Big +1 for getUUID() and storing UUID as byte[] and returning java.util.UUID
Storage as byte[] will improve db load times.
Whatever you like for a name is fine for me but I would caution against over
generic
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu ser...@xwiki.com wrote:
On 12/17/2009 10:30 PM, Pascal Voitot wrote:
If you look in semantic web definitions, the difference between an entity
and a resource is really hard to tell:)
Entity seems to be the most generic word to describe
Hi Devs,
code
OfficeImporter::officeToXHTML(byte[] officeFileData, DocumentName
referenceDocument, boolean filterStyles):XHTMLOfficeDocument
OfficeImporter::xhtmlToXDOM(XHTMLOfficeDocument
xhtmlOfficeDocument):XDOMOfficeDocument
OfficeImporter::officeToXDOM(byte[] officeFileData,
21 matches
Mail list logo
