>>> >> So I guess what I’m saying is that for me what would help the most the >>> >> current workflow used by the xwiki core dev team is: >>> >> * the introduction of the xar:fetch and xar:deploy mojos >>> >> * the validation (to help prevent mistakes) >>> >> * the extraction of the attachments as standard files on the file system >>> >> so that they can be replaced easily >> > Plus at least extract the JS-extensions and CSS-extensions as JS and CSS >> > files at least or? > Yes those are content for me (what I meant by content is doc content + all > xproperties of type textarea). ok, so that's deterministic at least (but sometimes too much?) Also, how do you determine the extension ? (seems like the object nature would dictate that...). >> > And the same holds for velocity and groovy code or? >> > But here, I cannot find a way that would make it clear that a given >> > object property or page content is in velocity, groovy, or xxxx. >> > Is there a way? > They’re not in groovy or velocity, they’re in some markup syntax (e.g. XWiki > Syntax 2.1). Mmh, here I am really not convinced. I've seen many pages be only designed to be used using parseGroovyFromPage. Is this something that is deprecated now? I've also seen velocity-based content to be the core of the UI of most applications and be contained in the content of pages.
>From the description you make, the files would not be .vm or .groovy (actually, there would be none, right?) but using some wiki-syntax-extension. Right? To me, it seems like having .vm and .grv or .groovy files is essential. I would be alone? Paul _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
