On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 26 janv. 2011 à 22:05, Caleb James DeLisle a écrit : > >> I see. this is still far away from decision but in my own opinion: >> 1. Document content should be in a separate file where it is easily >> accessible, the file extension >> would probably have to be standardized to something like .xwiki2 > > I would call it .xwiki2 or so unless there's a special object that would > enable this to be different. > I would make it become .vm and .grv many many times. > >> 2. document content, metadata and objects should all be integrated in the >> same directory structure. >> This will allow for easy storage, backup, and define an alternative and more >> robust import/export >> format. > > To me the immediate interest is to make such a set of directory, or part of > that, be crawlable by an IDE (e.g. my dear IntelliJ IDEA telling me all the > groovy and velocity calls to my java objects).
This thread becomes relevant to my interests :) We definitely need to define a standard structure to represent a XWiki document on a filesystem. It could then also be used for example for a WebDAV implementation, so that you can benefit from your favorite IDE features but keeping the DB storage. IMO this would beat the XEclipse approach in the short term, as the barrier to start using your IDE for everything XWiki would be far lower (vs. in XEclipse you have to implement an object editor that knows that a XWiki.StyleSheetExtension is CSS etc.) Then the next step is to have syntax highlighting for .xwiki20 files for popular editors (Eclipse, textmate, vim, IDEA, etc.) Jerome. > > paul > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
