Vincent Massol wrote: > On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: >> >>> Vincent Massol wrote: >>>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: >>>>>> Q: Is the macro name appropriate? Do you know of a better one? >>>>> Point taken: formula is better than equation. Actually, initially >>>>> it >>>>> was >>>>> named "formula", but I didn't like it that much. Anyway, the >>>>> community >>>>> has spoken. >>>>> >>>>> Point not taken: rendering is the right name IMO. Before xwiki- >>>>> rendering >>>>> as a syntax converter, rendering has a widely accepted sense as >>>>> generating raster graphics. From Wikipedia: "Rendering is the >>>>> process of >>>>> generating an image from a model, by means of computer programs". >>>>> This >>>>> is what the module does, and the fact that we have another thing >>>>> called >>>>> "rendering" doesn't mean that we must invent new names for >>>>> something >>>>> standard. >>>> I'd agree to use rendering but *only* if: >>>> >>>> * It's integrated inside the xwiki-rendering module >>>> * It's implemented as a XWiki Parser and Renderer (and thus we >>>> introduce a syntax for it) >>>> >>>> I think it could fit well in the xwiki-rendering module. We'll >>>> need to >>>> adjust a few things (since it would be the first renderer to >>>> generate >>>> binary data) but that's a good thing. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>> Well, it doesn't actually do parsing or rendering. The code is really >>> small, and it just forwards the text to a service, which returns the >>> binary blob. >>> >>> But I don't understand why do you insist on this conflict between >>> image >>> rendering and text rendering? >> I'd really prefer that we call it xwiki-formula meaning that it >> contains APIs for formula manipulation (even if right now the only >> API we offer is one that generates an image). Same as we have xwiki- >> chart for manipulating charts. >> >> Rendering has a strong connotation in xwiki land. It means >> http://code.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Modules/RenderingModule >> >> + the name is pretty long and ungainly (it seems nicer to me to keep >> module names as short as possible) >> >> After more thinking I don't think it fits as a Renderer since the >> main idea of a Parser/Renderer is that you parse with any parser and >> you're able to use any renderer. This wouldn't be the case here. > > Should the formula macro be in the xwiki-formula module (as a sub > module for ex)? Or should it be in the rendering module? I think as we > progress through componentization it should be in xwiki-formula so > that we have self isolated modules that can be used as is. This would > remove deps between the rendering module and xwiki-formula for ex. So > as soon as a business domain materializes, everything related to that > domain should find its way inside the module for that domain IMO > > ok I give in :) > > so I would see: > > xwiki-formula/ > L– xwiki-formula-renderer > |_ xwiki-formula-macro > > and > > xwiki-chart/ > |_ xwiki-chart-renderer > |_ xwiki-chart-macro > > wdyt?
+1 I'll move both of them now (formula and chart). -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
