28 Aug
2012
28 Aug
'12
4:20 p.m.
On Aug 28, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
For me the package.xml should probably even be removed or at least a lot of information
should be removed. There's no point in listing the files explicitly for example. Same
for whether it's a backup pack or not.
And a lot of the information currently in package.xml should be moved to
META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml such as author, license, version, name, description.
So I'm definitely with you about creating a XWiki-specific descriptor (not tied to
maven) located in META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml for all our extensions, but beefing up
package.xml goes in the wrong direction IMO.
At the very least I'd like that we agree about where we'd like to go (I've
made a proposal with META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml) and then discuss how to get there and
what it takes. If it means going through intermediary steps, then fine, the important part
for me being to agree on where we want to go.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Aug 28, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
It's exactly the same thing. The package.xml file is the XAR way to
provide informations about the file and is generated from the pom.xml.
It already provide the a subset of extension informations (name,
version, license, etc.) so the proposal here is about adding more
things. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Whatever the solution we need consistency IMO. If your proposal is to create an
extension.xml file located in META-INF/xwiki and that we would put in all our extension
types then I'm all for it too.
I don't like mixing extension information with packaging information. For me
package.xml shouldn't contain extension information. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 28, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to modify a bit the Maven XAR plugin to add in the
>>>> package.xml some extension related informations like the extension id
>>>> and version at the very least.
>>>
>>> Why not package the pom.xml instead in META-INF/maven/* as it's done by
the Maven JAR plugin?
>>
>> Because it's not supposed as part of XAR format by existing XAR
>> parser, you will get an error because it will fail to parse it as a
>> document. The proposal here is to use something that already exists,
>> does not break anything and is very easy to do.
>
> I personally much prefer to add META-INF support over changing the package.xml format
because it's much better aligned with all other formats like JAR, EAR, WAR, etc and
with the way we handle JAR extensions.
I think you don't understand what I mean here. The issue is not that
it's complex to support it, adding support in 4.2 for META-INF will
not change the fact that you will get an error in older version with
your XAR.
>
> It doesn't look complex to add either, it's a matter of excluding META-INF
files from the parser and to use the Maven Archiver (see
http://maven.apache.org/shared/maven-archiver/).
Making the XAR format depends on Maven is not exactly something
generic or even very nice. Core extension scanner is looking at the
pom located in jar file among other things in order to find as much as
it can but lets not forget that this is a hack and nothing else. > Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
>>>>
>>>>>> It would be more generic and similar to how JARs are handled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idea is to be able to know what a XAR is exactly like we
have the
>>>>>>> pom.xml packaged with the jar file for example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Among other things it will cover the following use cases:
>>>>>>> * when someone import a XAR with the standard UI,
automatically
>>>>>>> register it in the extension index if it happen to be an
extension
>>>>>>> (i.e. if we find extension informations in its package.xml)
>>>>>>> * wiki manager and workspaces can properly register actual
extension
>>>>>>> when creating their default template from a XAR the first
time (this
>>>>>>> is for example required to be able to upgrade a farm with EM
where
>>>>>>> pretty much all the wiki as been created from this default
template)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In both cases the idea is to support as much current
behaviours as we
>>>>>>> can and still be able to use the full power of Extension
Manager.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There should not be any backward compatibility issue here
since it
>>>>>>> does not really change anything in the XAR structure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is my +1