Christian Egli <christian.e...@sbs.ch> writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> If nothing has been started once the new export framework is installed
>> and the early bugs are fixed, I will do the port.
>
> I don't quite understand why we need to "port" anything. The taskjuggler
> exporter is different than the other exporters in that it doesn't really
> export the content of an org file. Instead it just goes through the
> headlines (using the mapping API), takes some to be tasks and reads the
> properties of these headlines to build the taskjuggler file. It pretty
> much ignores any text that is between the headlines (see also the
> commentary in org-taskjuggler.el). In essence it treats the org file as
> a tree of nodes with properties that define the tasks, resources and
> reports. It doesn't use any of the common (old) exporting
> infrastructure. So woudn't a "ported" org-taskjuggler.el look exactly
> like to one that we have today?
I am not working on Taskjuggler exporter. I do have a FreeMind exporter
in the works.
That said, moving the TaskJuggler exporter to new org-export-* APIs -
Nicolas calls them tools - is "a good thing". Each new exporter,
exercises or emphasizes different aspects of the export infrastructure.
I am sure "porting" TaskJuggler will further solidify the org-export
framework in terms of exposing existing bugs or adding new utilties or
APIs.
http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-export-reference.html
If TaskJuggler exporter "just works", then it is good. The porting task
can be done in an un-hurried manner.
> Thanks
> Christian
--
