Adding contents from Wiki of expressjs:express in en language

[IamLizu]

Overview

As we have discussed here in expressjs/discussions#251, we are keeping docs only in the website. It is easier to maintain a single place instead. This PR will make sure that anything that is in the wiki but not in the website is being added.

New files

• New features in 3x
• Migrating from 2x to 3x
• New features in 4x
• Migrating from 3x to 4x

Notes

1. There's pages for Migrating from 2x to 3x and New features in 3x in Wiki. However, 3x is already deprecated. So, I just added these files and referenced in en/3x/api.md.
2. Added the Other modules from wiki home to the en/resources/utils.md.
3. Only focused on en as of now.

Linked Issues

• Closes Deprecate the Express Legacy Wiki discussions#251

Edit: Rewrote description in order to give a better idea. Added few links so that relevant things can be navigated to from here.

[netlify]

❌ Deploy Preview for expressjscom-preview failed.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	e79bffe
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/expressjscom-preview/deploys/66bb8936438ee800084c4b42

[IamLizu]

Before I proceed with other contents, I have a few questions,

1. I have written these two files in markdown. Other guides such as migrating-4 or migrating-5 uses HTML. Can we be lose on this one or should I rewrite?
2. I should add for other languages as well or en is okay for now? Perhaps we could include everything in en first, then move to other languages in different PR?
3. Is this okay so far?
4. Do we need to include this https://github.com/expressjs/express/wiki/ESON-JSON-Configuration?

cc: @wesleytodd @UlisesGascon

[bjohansebas]

It would be better if the new pages were translated in different PRs, as it could happen like in https://expressjs.com/ru/resources/applications.html where the page is not translated into the corresponding language.

[UlisesGascon]

1. I have written these two files in markdown. Other guides such as migrating-4 or migrating-5 uses HTML. Can we be lose on this one or should I rewrite?

I think that markdown is fine, but you might require html if you need additional features that are not included in the markdown support.

2. I should add for other languages as well or en is okay for now? Perhaps we could include everything in en first, then move to other languages in different PR?

Don't worry, we can focus on English only in this PR.

3. Is this okay so far?

Yeah! Thanks for leading this :)

4. Do we need to include this https://github.com/expressjs/express/wiki/ESON-JSON-Configuration?

I don't think so, seems outdated in 2024 context 👍

[IamLizu]

Hi 👋

Regarding the items which were included as Pending in the PR description,

1. Template Engines: It was just linked to website, so nothing to add here.
2. Frameworks built on top of Express: Links to website, no other content, it seems it was removed from the website intentionally at some point or moved into different page. In any case, seems nothing to do here.
3. Boilerplate: Most of them are old, but added those in the Express examples page.

And with that, I am marking this PR available for review 🤚

Edit: Forced pushed after a rebase in order to update the translation workflow file.

[wesleytodd]

I am generally 👍 on this, but just want to call out there is a bunch of outdated info in this content from long ago. So it might be that we never even want to translate much of this and should take some time to clean it up first.

[IamLizu]

I am generally 👍 on this, but just want to call out there is a bunch of outdated info in this content from long ago. So it might be that we never even want to translate much of this and should take some time to clean it up first.

Make sense. However, these outdated contents are in their respective file such as "migrating to 3x". Those information are supposed to be outdated but should be kept for historical reason in my opinion.

Readers coming to the website will definitely read the new contents and I assume no is looking to migrate to 3.x for example, so we can safely ignore their translation as well maybe?

[bjohansebas]

Is it useful to bring in the boilerplate when Express@5 is almost ready?

If it's for historical purposes, it might be better to handle it, for example, with a URL like /v4/examples and add the boilerplate there while keeping the main examples page as it was. What do you think about this idea?

[crandmck]

Sorry I'm coming to this discussion late, as I've been out on vacation for a few weeks.

I think we should be cautious about what material we port from the wiki to the doc site, because:

• Every page in the docs potentially adds work for maintenance and translation.
• Our focus should be on 5.x docs. We have a LOT of work to do there, without taking on additional efforts that have less value.

Let's think carefully about whether it's worth investing the time and effort to move/maintain/translate these topics:

New features in 3x

"New" since when, 2014? How much value does this really have for real-world users?

Migrating from 2x to 3x

If someone (who?) still has a v2 app, do we really want to encourage them to migrate to v3? Wouldn't it make more sense to just rewrite it for v5, or even v4? This seems to me to have little or no real world value.

New features in 4x
Migrating from 3x to 4x

Again, this stuff is from around 10 years ago. The info should be covered in https://expressjs.com/en/guide/migrating-4.html but again, what's the best practice for someone (presumably not that many ppl) with a 3.x app? Is it to move to 4.x? Or rewrite it for 5.x? If we really want to spend time documenting how to upgrade from 3x -> 4x, then we should just update https://expressjs.com/en/guide/migrating-4.html.

Also re this comment

information are supposed to be outdated but should be kept for historical reason

IMHO, we should consider keeping the wiki around specifically for outdated historical/archival info. It's far less visible than the website, and does't ever need to be translated. These pages should clearly be marked as "OUTDATED ARCHIVED". Yes, we can move them to the website, but is that really how we want to spend our precious time and effort?

[IamLizu]

Hey @crandmck 👋

Sorry, I guess I also somehow missed this one.

I hear you, the new files are not new at all. But they are new in their own context. For example, in docs of 2.0, features of 3.0 are new. And that is where those said new features are mentioned, in their respective files (#1565 (comment)).

Funny thing I recently watched an conference talk of yours about how wiki should focus for developers and website for consumers. My bad, I would have at least approached a bit different way if I known better when we were discussing about deprecating the wiki in expressjs/discussions#251 where @wesleytodd and @UlisesGascon had a affirmative indication to what I said in expressjs/discussions#251 (comment).

That said, I think no one is going to read the docs for 2.0 or 3.0 so perhaps we can just simply ignore translation for those old files?