Vincent, After our discussion on IRC, I perfectly understand how we could benefit from convergence in the domain of document parsing and rendering, with the advantage of not only more developpers, but more users too, then more tests.
Vincent Siveton did a great job with an Eclipse plugin that was integrated in m2eclipse, but: - this is only Eclipse-centric, how about other IDE's? - it would still need a lot of work to continue improve it (it actually helps me a lot when editing pages, no show-stopper bugs: only minor things) > - our brand new GWT-based WYSIWYG editor Is there something in XWiki to help editing pages that are on local disk (and stored in svn)? Would this GWT-based WYSIWYG editor help here? Or is it only web-centric? Regards, Hervé Le lundi 02 février 2009, Vincent Massol a écrit : > Hi there, > > On Jan 31, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Vincent Siveton wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > 2009/1/29 Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>: > >> Howdy, > >> > >> I've been looking at reporting in Maven 3.x and I've been following > >> the work > >> that Vincent Massol has been doing over at XWiki where he has made > >> some > >> attempts at melding Doxia, the XWiki rendering engine, and > >> WikiModel. You > >> can see the proposal here: > >> > >> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/RenderingEngineConvergence > >> > >> I am looking to remove the Doxia dependency from Maven 3.x so that > >> reporting > >> is removed from core and just becomes another set of components. > >> Having > > > > I definitely agree to decouple Maven from Doxia, or conversely :) > > We actually have a lot of problems due to this coupling, see MNG-3402. > > > >> Doxia coupled to Maven is not very nice so in the next couple > >> releases of > >> the Maven 3.x alphas the hard dependency on Doxia will be removed. > >> This will > >> open the door for anyone who wants to add a different mechanism. > >> Doxia > >> reports will still work, I'm not planning on removing the > >> functionality just > >> unbinding it from the core. But that opens the door for something > >> new! > > > > Some questions to clarify what you have in mind: > > - how do you plan to integrate reporting concretely to Maven 3? > > - what about the backward compatibility in the reporting plugins? > > > >> What I personally think the best path would be is to help what > >> Vincent has > >> started. There are really only three people here who work on Doxia, > >> the > >> releases are very slow in coming and I think you would immediately > >> double or > > > > Agree but we work when we have time :) > > @Dennis: what are your availabilities to release the version 1.0? > > After this release, 1.1 could be out, IMHO all stuffs are there. > > > >> triple the size of the team merging with the XWiki folks and > >> getting the > >> WikiModel developer as well. This is what the XWiki folks do all > >> the time > >> and I think you would get some more velocity in the progress of the > >> project > >> as a whole. Vincent is using Plexus for his stuff so it's not that > >> wildly > >> different but I think you would get more visibility over there and > >> a higher > > > > The xwiki proposal seems to move the Doxia code to the xwiki umbrella, > > so do you plan to do it? > > > > @Vincent, could you clarify why a fork is not possible for you? > > Let me explain the point of view of the xwiki community (I hope I'm > summarizing it well here): > > * XWiki is not a wiki. It's a platform offering wiki components to > develop any type of content-centric web application based on the wiki > paradigm. > > * We've started reorganizing ourselves to implement this vision back > in 2007. We've started by decoupling our monolithic code into modules > and components (using Plexus). > > * We're not finding that there are some important pieces that we want > to make top level projects, independent of the other xwiki modules/ > components. For the moment we have identified 2 pieces: > - the rendering engine > - our brand new GWT-based WYSIWYG editor > > * We could propose these under new projects at the ASF for example. > These are the reasons preventing us from doing so right now: > - we'd like to promote the XWiki project name as the place where to > get wiki "components". If we start splitting the rendering engine or > the wysiwyg editor we won't achieve this > - having to implement and support several projects (the xwiki one + > the engine one at ASF + the wysiwyg one wherever else > (@code.google.org for ex)) is going to spread our committer base thin > achieving the opposite as what we want to achieve which is making all > people interested on working on wiki "components" together. > - we have a very good infrastructure team and we completely host > all our tools. We like it this way since it's real fast and it works > real well and we can only complain to ourselves if something is not > right and we can fix it right away. Note that the infra is paid by > XWiki SAS (a company offering services on top of the xwiki oss project > - See http://tinyurl.com/7c488p for more details) > - basically we can work faster if the code is on the xwiki svn > > It's possible that one day we'll propose the whole project to the ASF > but I don't think we're ready for that yet. For the moment we like it > the way we are able to progress fast and we don't feel the need. > > Note that xwiki projects are currently under the LGPL but we can > discuss making the new rendering engine (which would be the merge > between doxia, xwiki and wikimodel ) under the ASL if you feel this is > better. > > Now why are we interested in merging them all? Actually that wasn't > our idea. It was Jason's. We were fine developing and progressing fast > on our own xwiki rendering engine. But at the same time it's true that > I've realized it was a pity that XWiki/WikiModel and Doxia are re- > developing the same things instead of collaborating and working on > building something together. So I see 2 win-win advantages for us all: > - for Doxia this can be a way to make it live on and be active again, > with even more features and better support > - for XWiki we would love to get some new committers on board to help > us with the rendering engine (we currently have about 3 committers > active on it either full time or part time). In addition the merge > between these 3 engines (xwiki/wikimodel/doxia) would create a new > rendering engine that could easily be the best rendering engine on the > web. For us one advantage would be to spread the xwiki name even more > and thus get more contributors and users of the xwiki "components" and > applications. > > Last, while I see it very interesting to everyone to perform this > merge, I can understand if some people would prefer to continue > working on what they do on their side without merging. That's fine and > I'm not going to fight for doing the merge at all cost. Especially > since doing the merge is going to be costly for us in term of time/ > effort. For it to be worthwhile we must all agree to it and like the > idea. > > So what happens if the merge isn't done? On the xwiki side we'll > continue to improve our rendering engine fast (we're progressing very > fast right now since we have very active committers and since the > rendering is actively used in all the xwiki applications this will > continue). Even though we have a Doxia bridge we're not using it for > different reasons but one of them is that the Doxia parsers we've > tried were not good enough. I remember trying the confluence one and > it was very buggy. So I was just waiting for the need to use the > confluence parser to arise before rewriting it using wikimodel (it's a > one day job at max to get a very strong parser, thanks to wikimodel > tools). > > Merging has its share or work required on both sides but it's the best > option in the end IMO. Now it's for you to decide if this has enough > interest for Doxia. > > Cheers, > -Vincent > > PS: If you want to see how the xwiki project is managed read > http://tinyurl.com/7c488p and go to http://dev.xwiki.org which contains all > our dev practices > > > Cheers, > > > > Vincent > > > >> degree of collaboration. I think you would also get a model that is > >> more > >> complete for things like blogs, wikis, and books. > >> > >> Any thoughts? I've CC'd Vincent too as I'm not sure he's on this > >> list. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jason
