> On 05 Sep 2016, at 16:42, Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> 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?
you’re probably talking about XWiki Syntax 1.0 but even that was wiki markup not groovy (you had to use <% …. %> ). > 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. That’s in vm files, not wiki 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? Thanks -Vincent > Paul > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
