Re: [xwiki-devs] Location, release cycle and distribution of non core macros 2.0

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: > On Nov 25, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote: > >> Thomas Mortagne wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Jerome Velociter >>> <jerome(a)xwiki.com> wrote: >>>> Hello devs, >>>> >>>> This week we created a new "xwiki-macros" module under platform/ >>>> core/ >>>> for macros of the XWiki Syntax 2.0. Another question now is what >>>> do we >>>> do for macros that are not "core macros" (i.e. not indispensable >>>> for >>>> what we consider being the basic working wiki, unlike the TOC >>>> macro, or >>>> the velocity macro). Development of such macros already started, >>>> for >>>> example the instant messenger status macro, and the map macro. >>>> >>>> Possibilities I see : >>>> >>>> 1. having them at the same level we have applications/ plugins/ >>>> under >>>> platform : adding a macros/ directory. >>>> 2. having them in the xwiki-macros core submodule, despite the >>>> fact they >>>> are not core >>>> >>>> I am for solution 1 right now, but maybe there are better >>>> alternatives >>>> to this, too. >>>> >>>> We also have to decide how we do release and distribute them, >>>> for >>>> example do we pack them with XE, or do we release them >>>> separately, >>>> and >>>> let users install them themselves as it is the case for most of >>>> the >>>> applications already. (For me the answer to this latest question >>>> seems >>>> obvious : we _should_ send them together with XE) >>>> >>>> Let me know what you think, I'd like if still possible having >>>> the >>>> map >>>> macro in 1.7 RC1. >>> +1 for 2. especially if we plan to distribute them with XE. >>> Anyway >>> having them in core/xwiki-macros does not means it is >>> automatically >>> in >>> the "basic working wiki" and all the macros we officially support >>> should be in the same place IMO. >> I gave it more thoughts, and I think I agree with Thomas. I think >> it's >> better to have the macros we plan to officially support in one >> place. >> Plus, if we bundle them by default with XE, having them in core >> together >> with the other macros would prevent us of having to state the >> dependency >> explicitly at XE level, as we have to do for plugins that are in >> platform/plugins/ for example. > I'm not sure if this is right. It might be ok for now since we > don't > have a lot. But very soon we'll have some macro that are not > ready to > be released or that are a bit "exotic" (I'm not sure for the map > macro) or that have a different release cycle (it's a pain to > have to > wait 3 months to release a macro that is ready for consumption for > ex). For me this is exactly similar to plugins. We don't release > them > all when we do a XE release. This is not describing a macro we officially support IMO. Such macro should always work or we consider this as a contrib even if it has been done by us at first and it will goes with other contrib macros.