- xwiki-devs@xwiki.org - lists.xwiki.org

xwiki database backup
by anujssharma86＠yahoo.co.in 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

I am working on XWiki MySQL database backup. I have to take the database backup and export it to other system within xwiki, so that the other system will have all the data . Can you please me, is there any plugin available for it or I have to create one new page and do some programming? If yes, then what code I have to write for the same. Thanks, Anuj

2 1

[VOTE] Release XEclipse 1.0M1
by Vincent Massol 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Hi, I'd like to release XEclipse 1.0M1. Release notes: ** New Feature * [XECLIPSE-1] - Navigate the Documents tree and viewing XWiki pages. * [XECLIPSE-2] - Delete existing pages/spaces * [XECLIPSE-3] - Login to xwiki from Eclipse and import spaces selectively * [XECLIPSE-9] - Edit and Save pages * [XECLIPSE-10] - Add new pages/spaces ** Task * [XECLIPSE-11] - Clean up source code and apply XWiki development practices * [XECLIPSE-12] - Create Maven2 build for the Eclipse integration * [XECLIPSE-20] - Write a quick installation and using page for XEclipse * [XECLIPSE-25] - Move XEclipse to xwiki-extensions/ and out of the Sandbox Here's my +1 The list being down I'll take the risk of releasing it without more votes... I think we have already all agreed we wanted that release to happen ASAP. In addition, I've pinged on IRC and I got 3 +1: - Sergiu - Catalin - Stephane Thanks -Vincent

2 1

[Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions
by Sergiu Dumitriu 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Hi, This is more a matter of opinions. Should a comment increase the version of a document? I'd say yes, but the view of simple users is that a comment should not affect the document, as it is something describing the document, not belonging to the document. So we should have a parameter that configures this. WDYT? Sergiu -- http://purl.org/net/sergiu

2 1

Use Swizzle directly or use a facade (was Re: XEclipse 1.0M1 will only work for xwiki-core-1.1M4 (but not for xwiki-core-1.2-SNAPSHOT))
by Vincent Massol 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Hi Catalin, A new healthy fight! :) See below. On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:32 PM, Catalin Hritcu wrote: [snip] >> Pros: >> * A single way for all xwiki clients to connect to XWiki servers >> * Less maintenance, less documentation, less work in general since >> someone >> else is developing swizzle :). This point only is huge. >> > I would not stress this. Actually I already worked quite a lot on > improving swizzle so far and I think there are many other ways we will > have to improve swizzle. What is nice about it was having a visible > working project to start from, rather than implementing it from > scratch. Having David to "guard" the source is just the cherry on top > of the cake. You didn't spend even 1% of the time it took to create Swizzle as it is today and if you think about how swizzle will evolve in the future that percentage drops down to 0.01%. This is why I thought this should be stressed out :) [snip] >> * If swizzle goes away or is abandonned then it'll be bad for >> xwiki and we'd >> need to support it/reintegrate it. >> > First, swizzle is open source so can't "go away", we can always > continue to maintain it. That's harder than you think. Radeox went away and are we maintaining it? Nope. Of course we can always say that it's because its architecture was too limited, etc but had it been maintained its architecture could have evolved too. The same would happen with swizzle if it goes away IMO. But it's not only an issue of Swizzle going away because it's abandoned. Imagine a competitor project appears and it's better than swizzle for XWiki. How do we tell all our users that they have to redo all their client code. We won't and thus we probably won't move to this better project because we have standardized on Swizzle. It's about having a stable client-side interface. I much prefer the approach where we define our model objects (we need them anyway on the server so it may even be possible to share some of them on the client - Not sure about this but it's a thought) and our interfaces and we keep the implementation separate. I'm 100% for implementing those interfaces with Swizzle. In addition we need to offer a XWiki-specific API so instead of offering several remoting APIs I propose we offer only one. Then it's up to the implementations to implement them. The confluence implementation (using Swizzle) could throw NotImplementedException for stuff it doesn't implement so that client code using it will be 100% confluence-compatible if that's the user's desire. And we would be able to have a single unified API that has all the XWiki-specific stuff. > And if it ever goes abandoned how would this > be any worse than what we have now? Now we have two "little-swizzle" > implementations one of them was _already_ abandoned, and the other is > very likely to grow into a full fledged "swizzle". Even if we have to > maintain one swizzle it's a big gain over having to maintain many. See above. > >> Actually this is a point that is >> bothering me Catalin. I think we'd need our own object model and >> expose that >> as a component and then provide a default implementation using >> swizzle >> behind the hood. Same as what we're doing for everything. This >> will also >> make the API seamless WRT extra APIs we have for xwiki (like getting >> objects, etc). >> > It is true that swizzle provides an implementation but not an > interface. However, why can't we provide interfaces as part of the > swizzle project ? Why can't we make swizzle more component-friendly by > just changing it? Why would we need another XWiki-specific wrapper > layer? Swizzle is not our project. We could become committers to it of course but I assure you it's still going to be 100 times more difficult to evolve Swizzle than to evolve XWiki code. For 2 reasons: * We "own" XWiki. All committers on XWiki are interested by XWiki only. * Swizzle has to stay generic and making a generic change is always more difficult than making a specific change. The same applies to the fact that Swizzle if confluence-specific. Regarding the confluence-specific, it bothers me that the only remoting interface we're providing is confluence-specific and has confluence written all over. I think we should offer a XWiki-specific API and let the user choose the implementation he wants transparently (confluence or not). > One advantage I see of improving swizzle rather than hiding it away is > that this way we are guaranteed(!) to stay compatible with confluence > on the common features. While if you start to develop wrappers on top > of swizzle that may or may not be the case. We wouldn't loose this feature by using Swizzle as an implementation of our API. >> So IMO: >> * We shouldn't use swizzle directly >> * We should develop our own client side Java Objects and API >> *interface* for >> people interacting with XWiki remotely. >> > Why can't interfaces be done inside the swizzle project ? Why should > we try to hide swizzle away ? See above. >> - That API should be independent of the protocol used. >> > Swizzle is actually already independent of the protocol used. It could > work with SOAP as well as XML-RPC if somebody went into the trouble to > reimplement everything for SOAP. The interface would be the same and a > client would not be able to tell any difference. Then all the best. We can benefit from that. >> - A default implementation should be done using swizzle. It'll >> be mostly >> empty and only call out swizzle objects/swizzle APIs >> * XEClipse should be refactored to use this API >> * This API should be developed using components and using the new >> org.xwiki >> namespace. >> > Why can't this be done in an interoperable fashion part of the swizzle > project ? Why can't the namespace be org.codehaus.swizzle :) ? Isn't > this "not-made-here" attitude? Yep and that's important IMO (see above). The strategy I'd like to have for XWiki from now on is to develop components and provide XWiki interface classes. The implementations can be done using whatever external frameworks. >> WDYT? >> > I think that we have no good reason to hide swizzle away under more > wrapper layers since _swizzle_is_a_wrapper_itself_, and I think that > we can solve any modularity/componentization problems inside the > swizzle project. See above again. Let's see what others say. Thanks -Vincent

1 0

database backup
by anujssharma86＠yahoo.co.in 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

I am working on XWiki MySQL database backup. I want to take the database backup and export it to other system so that the other system will have all the data . Can you please help me whether I shall take a database backup in XWiki, or I have to create one new page for it? If yes, then what code I have to write for the same. Please Reply. Thanks, Anuj

1 0

XEclipse 1.0M1 will only work for xwiki-core-1.1M4 (but not for xwiki-core-1.2-SNAPSHOT)
by Catalin Hritcu 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

Hello, Until now I have refrained from making API breaking changes in XML-RPC in order to keep compatibility with XEclipse. However, these changes are necessary and cannot be delayed forever, so after the release of XEclipse 1.0M1 (scheduled for today) XEclipse 1.0-SNAPSHOT will need to be moved to swizzle-confluence. I volunteer to make this change happen in the XEclipse trunk once XEclipse 1.0M1 is released. To sum things up: - XEclipse 1.0M1 will only work for xwiki-core-1.1M4 (and all the remaining releases on the 1.1 branch) - XEclipse 1.0M2 will only work for xwiki-core-1.2M1 or later WDYT ? Catalin

3 8

[ANN] XWiki Eclipse 1.0 Milestone 1 Released
by Vincent Massol 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

Hi, We're delighted to release this first version of the XWiki Eclipse plugin. Announcement: http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ XWikiEclipse10M1Released See the Eclipse plugin page for installation instructions and user guide: http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Code/XEclipseExtension It's the result of one project from the Google Summer of Code 2007 and was done by Tharindu Jayasuriya and Asiri Rathnayake. Well done to both of you! We're happy to have you as XWiki committers for this XWiki Eclipse plugin. Let's now continue the good work you've started and keep improving this beastie. Release notes: * [XECLIPSE-1] - Navigate the Documents tree and viewing XWiki pages. * [XECLIPSE-2] - Delete existing pages/spaces * [XECLIPSE-3] - Login to xwiki from Eclipse and import spaces selectively * [XECLIPSE-9] - Edit and Save pages * [XECLIPSE-10] - Add new pages/spaces Enjoy! -The XWiki Dev Team

1 0

[VOTE] Commit Eclipse integration source code and give Commit rights to it to Tharindu and Asiri
by Vincent Massol 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

Hi, I'd like to commit the eclipse integration source code in a xwiki- extensions/xwiki-eclipse directory. Of course Tharindu/Asiri shoud clean up their code and align it with XWiki's coding conventions first and I won't commit anything until they do so. I'd also like to give them commit access to that section of our SVN (and NOT as general committers). Here's my +1 to both topics. Please cast your votes. Thanks -Vincent

4 4

Creating a SVN externals for Curriki
by Vincent Massol 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

Hi, I've had a request to create a svn external for curriki since they want to use the 1.1 branches from now on. I'm going to create it in [root]/externals/curriki-devs Would be nice to move our trunks-users and trunks-devs there too but I fear this may cause issues so I'll leave them where they are for now unless someone has a better idea. Thanks -Vincent

1 2

Strategy for FAQ handling
by Vincent Massol 26 Aug '07

26 Aug '07

Hi, Just wanted to explain my current strategy for FAQs on xwiki.org. Whenever I review FAQ pages I do the following: 1) Check if there's a page in the wiki that discusses the question mentioned in the FAQ page 2) If there is, remove the FAQ content and instead link to that page. If there were more information in the FAQ entry, move that information to the page proper 3) if there isn't, then create a new page, in the user guide, dev guide or admin guide and then go to step 2. IMO this is the best strategy for the best of both world: 1) Have a comprehensive documentation 2) Prevent duplication 3) Still keep the FAQ entries so that people can find them easily using google or the wiki search and then get directed to the relevant documentation page. All help is welcome! Thanks -Vincent

1 1