Re: [xwiki-devs] [Contrib] Tour Application dependency in XWiki

On 07 Jun 2016, at 11:17, Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: "Everything needed for the default XWiki runtime" is a bit vague.

I hope we're not going to move code from platform to contrib and back each time we decide to not bundle or bundle some extension.

Now we could still decide to have some flavor in contrib and have the tour > app included in that flavor but not in “the default XWiki runtime”. In > practice this would mean promoting this flavor instead of the base/default > flavor. The question will arise anyway when we next talk about other > flavors that we may want to have in contrib such a KB flavor, workgroup > flavor, web flavor, etc. > >> However, the current >> application supports XWiki >= 6.4.1. By moving it to platform, we will > only >> support the last XWiki version. > > This is a tough topic indeed. For the tour there’s the solution of keeping > it in contrib and introducing a flavor but for CKEditor it’s harder to > justify that it’s not part of the base flavor IMO but maybe it’s possible > and we would offer only the wiki editor in the base flavor. Of course we > could modify our functional tests fwk to support running on various > versions of the dependencies and have CI builds to ensure that an extension > works with all versions but it’s not perfect and it would mean that for the > first time we would have code in the xwiki github org that would not use > the latest APIs/latest JDK features. > > The other option is Marius’s, i.e. accept that we hand-pick some > extensions from contrib that we bundle in the base/default flavor such as > the Tour app, CKEditor integration, etc. In this case, we would just need > to redefine what “xwiki github org” means. Saying “core component” would > not be enough, it would needs a more precise definition. > > Interesting topic ;) > > Any other option that we have? > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> 2016-06-06 15:31 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt;et>: >> >>> >>>> On 06 Jun 2016, at 15:24, Marius Dumitru Florea < >>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 06 Jun 2016, at 14:50, Marius Dumitru Florea < >>>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Alexandru Cotiuga < >>>>>> alexandru.cotiuga(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As it was decided already, a Homepage Tour have to be implemented. >>>>> However, >>>>>>> no option regarding the place where the Tour Application should be >>>>> added as >>>>>>> dependency was discussed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are some possible options: >>>>>>> 1) XWiki Enterprise >>>>>>> 2) XWiki Platform Distribution >>>>>>> 3) XWiki Platform Helper >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4) Is there any option to have the Tour Application as a part of the >>>>> Core ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What would be the best way to include the Contrib applications in >>> XWiki? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On this topic (sorry if I hijack your thread) I was wondering why > don't >>>>> we >>>>>> have dependencies from platform/enterprise to contrib. We have lots > of >>>>>> third party dependencies, contrib could be considered as such. >>> Moreover, >>>>>> we're in the process of moving non-core (vertical) extensions out of >>>>>> platform to contrib. It would be a pity to move something from > contrib >>> to >>>>>> platform and then back to contrib. I have the same issue with the >>>>> CKEditor >>>>>> Integration extension. We want CKEditor as the default editor, > bundled >>>>> with >>>>>> the default distribution, but do we need to move it to platform? Same >>> for >>>>>> the Welcome Tour. >>>>> >>>>> I’d personally not like this for the following reasons: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 1) I like that the XWiki runtime is all released at once with all >>>>> extensions making it using the same versions and verified to work >>> together. >>>>> >>>> >>>> XWiki runtime has lots of third party dependencies. Bootstrap, Solr, >>>> jQuery, just to name a few. I don't see how having the source code in > our >>>> repo (platform) makes a difference at runtime when the >>>> integration/functional tests verify they work together. >>> >>> Because they don’t! :) Just check any extension in contrib and you’ll > see >>> their func test (when they have some!) don’t test that they work with > the >>> latest version of XWiki… >>> >>>> 2) Support. The XWiki runtime is supported by the XWiki Core Dev Team. >>>>> Extensions in contrib are not supported by the XWiki Core Dev Team. >>>> >>>> >>>> So the FAQ application you moved out of platform is no longer supported >>> by >>>> the XWiki Core Dev Team? >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>>> The extension page >>>> http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/FAQ+Application >>>> doesn't reflect this. >>> >>> I added my name to the list as a supporter. I’ve kept “XWiki Dev Team” >>> because it's a past authors and it wouldn’t make sense to remove it. But >>> yes it’s no longer officially supported by the XWiki Core Dev Team. >>> >>> Note that e.x.o doesn’t say who maintains a given extension, it just > says >>> who participated to developing it ;) We’re currently missing the info on >>> whether the extension is actively supported and by whom. FTR Confluence >>> does this with a “supported” label that you can hover over and provides >>> info. For example: >>> > https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/nl.avisi.confluence.plugins.numbe… >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>>> In addition xwiki-contrib is very open and anyone can make > modifications >>>>> there and quality is thus harder to guarantee. >>>>> >>>>> We defined the xwiki github organization as containing horizontal >>> modules, >>>>> ie modules that can be required for any flavor and both CKEditor and > the >>>>> Tour Application fit the need. By opposition to vertical modules which >>> make >>>>> sense only for some use cases (like the Meeting Manager app) and not > by >>>>> default in XE. We have the option of having flavors in contrib for >>> those if >>>>> we want though. For CKEditor it’s not a good thing since we’d like it > by >>>>> default. >>>>> >>>>> One alternative (which I’m not fond of at all) would be to have > ckeditor >>>>> as a separate git repo in the xwiki github organization. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Marius >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Alex