maven-doxia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vincent Massol <>
Subject Re: Breaking changes on Doxia trunk ok?
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:36:24 GMT
Hi guys,

I've been thinking about this today and I think the best is for me to  
continue writing the XWiki parser/Sinks inside of the XWiki code base  
since this will allow me the best speed of development. In practice  
the infra classes I need are minimal: a Sink interface, a Parser  
interface and that's all so doing my dev inside or outside of Doxia  
itself doesn't matter much.

Also I'd really like to have a wrapper in XWiki so that xwiki core  
code doesn't directly depend on Doxia but instead depends on some  
XWiki interfaces. Thus I need to do that wrapper work anyway.

What I'll do thus is move the code I started in the maven sandbox in  
XWiki's code base and refactor the sandbox implementation I have done  
to use the xwiki sources as a binary dependency. It should be quite  
easy to make a bridge from the direction xwiki --> doxia since the  
xwiki implementation will be richer than the doxia one.

In parallel I'll wait for the 1.0 release and then start contributing  
the changes I have done to Doxia.

I'll start doing a POC right now and see if this can work fine.


On Jan 23, 2008, at 8:44 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:

> Here's my view on doxia right now. I understand Vincent M's need for  
> somewhere to commit his stuff to, so let's try to solve that as  
> quickly as possible. In order to do that I propose yet another  
> alternative
> D) Create an xwiki-branch from the current trunk, where Vincent can  
> add him xwiki implementation. Including changes to the core.
> My reasoning behind this is that I feel that we are in risk of  
> loosing control of doxia, if we don't create a release plan soon.  
> However that is the topic of another e-mail (which I will start  
> soon). And I don't want that discussion to stop Vincent M's xwiki  
> momentum.
> Would you be OK with that solution Vincent M ?
> If it turns out that nothing much happens on trunk after that, it  
> should be easy enough to merge Vincent's changes back to trunk if we  
> want to.
> Lukas Theussl wrote:
>> I am for B) because that's what (I thought) we had agreed upon in  
>> the past. I always understood that doxia is still alpha, that I was  
>> allowed to make changes on trunk, and that we would stabilize the  
>> API with the first beta release. Also, as you say, we have already  
>> made some breaking changes to current trunk (eg DOXIA-137,  
>> DOXIA-155), and there are a number of open bugs whose fix will  
>> entail some breakig changes (since in practice people use hacks to  
>> workaround those bugs). However, I haven't tested recently if  
>> beta-1 works with the site plugin (it didn't when I tried a while  
>> ago).
>> Anyway, in order to push things forward, I would agree to do a 1.0  
>> release from the current alpha branch. I would vote with a belly- 
>> ache though because I feel that for a 1.0-final label there are  
>> some important things missing (DOXIA-123, DOXIA-138, DOXIA-145).  
>> OTOH some of the things that are fixed in beta-1 could well go into  
>> a 1.0 release, eg all the work Dave Syer has done on the confluence  
>> module.
>> I'd first like to hear Dennis' opinion though, he should know best  
>> how things work with various Maven plugins. I haven't had much time  
>> for doxia recently and even though I still plan to do things, I  
>> don't think I can contribute much in the near future...
>> Cheers,
>> -Lukas
>> Vincent Massol wrote:
>>> On Jan 22, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>> I think you should cut the 1.0 and then move on. You will  
>>>> completely  hose the site plugin will you not?
>>>> I'm all for changes. I want them but this can't happen before a  
>>>> 1.0.
>>> I'm fine with either of these options:
>>> A) Create a 1.0 branch so that work can be finished for 1.0 and  
>>> make  trunk 1.1/2.0. I'll commit on trunk then.
>>> B) Commit on trunk right now since Maven uses alphas of doxia and   
>>> there's an alpha branch for maven. And since I believe trunk is   
>>> already not working with maven.
>>> C) Leave trunk for 1.0 and create a 1.1/2.0 branch so that I can   
>>> commit there while waiting for the 1.0 version to be released and  
>>> then  merged back everything to trunk
>>> My preference goes to A) but I'm ok also with C). I know Lukas  
>>> prefers  B).
>>> Just let me know what I should do. Only thing that's sure is that  
>>> I  don't have close to enough knowledge/bandwidth to help with the  
>>> 1.0  release. The other sure thing is that I need a place to  
>>> commit ASAP  since I'm stuck right now and I'll loose my momentum  
>>> if I don't have a  place to commit. I really need to make quick  
>>> progress to be aligned  with xwiki's needs.
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>> We have to make something for the site plugin to use.
>>>> On 22-Jan-08, at 5:02 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I'm just starting development on Doxia and I need to understand  
>>>>> the  strategy since I need to make lots of breaking changes to   
>>>>> accomodate the XWiki use cases (I'm planning to replace XWiki's   
>>>>> rendering engine from Radeox to Doxia).
>>>>> I've just talked to VincentS and Lukas and the consensus I got  
>>>>> was  that I could just commit away on trunk and make breaking  
>>>>> changes  since:
>>>>> a) 1.0 has not been released yet and the API is not final and  
>>>>> thus  it's the right time to do this
>>>>> b) there an alpha branch that the current Doxia users (like  
>>>>> Maven  itself) can use id they don't want to upgrade to the  
>>>>> changes made.
>>>>> So I'd like agreement that I can make my changes on trunk.  
>>>>> Namely  I'd like to implement these (and more to come):
>>>>> * Add support for  
>>>>> level  6 sections and generalize Sink API for sections
>>>>> * Add an API for  
>>>>> getting  a tree of syntax blocks
>>>>> * Add support for  
>>>>> macros
>>>>> * Add support for   
>>>>> strikethroughs
>>>>> * Add support for   
>>>>> underscores
>>>>> * Add generic  
>>>>> parameters  support to Figure and Link events
>>>>> * Add new standard   
>>>>> parameters to figure sink API
>>>>> * Add new standard   
>>>>> parameters to link sink API
>>>>> * Add events for   
>>>>> recognizing words in the Sink API
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> -Vincent
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jason
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>> jason at sonatype dot com
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
>>>> is responsible for the quality of the whole
>>>> -- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
> -- 
> Dennis Lundberg

View raw message