9 Jun
2016
9 Jun
'16
1:12 p.m.
I think that if we are to have Recommended extensions inside e.x.o and EM,
I would consider it a bit too much to have them also in DW. But maybe this
is another discussion.
Thanks,
Caty
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On 09 Jun 2016, at 11:15, Ecaterina Moraru
(Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
Where are the Flavors in this proposal?
IMO Flavors don’t change; they’re still there and you still get them when
you start with an empty wiki. When you start an empty wiki you pick the
flavor you want and on the configuration screen, there are some recommended
extensions that are proposed. I think that’s the difference: flavors are a
fixed set of extensions. The Recommended extensions screen is just for
optional stuff that you may want. If the recommended extensins are brought
as part of the flavor (ie if they are already installed) then they won’t be
suggested on the configuration screen.
Basically flavors are distribution. Once you install a distribution you
can still install additional extensions by going to the Extension Manager.
However we make the user’s file easier when he starts the first time by
proposing some extensions.
This provides 2 advantages:
* We bring extensions that we deem important but that are not maintainted
by the xwiki core dev team to the user. He doesn’t need to discover the EM
UI nor find out which extensions are super nice for me.
* It allows to propose some extensions that need to run early in the
process, such as the Tour (the user needs the Tour to know how to reach the
EM UI ;)).
Another way of viewing this is that it’s a new feature of the EM/DW UI.
The EM/DW module would provide a Recommended Extensions view as a Wizard
when XWiki runtime starts the first time (and at each upgrade). Now what we
would need to be careful about is not drowning the user under 50
recommended extensions or it would loose its power. I think this config
wizard view should focus on Extensions that are super useful for getting
started. Then later one the user could go to the EM UI and get a full list
of Recommended Extensions, not just the one important for getting started.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Caty
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks for the replies. I’m listening of course to everyone and I’ve
tried
> in this mail to take all answers into
account.
>
> First, let me state our current strategy and an alternative that I’ve
been
> thinking about this morning under my shower
;)
>
> Current Voted Strategy
> ==================
>
> * Deliver an XWiki Runtime that is the best possible generic runtime
(i.e.
> most usable, most useful).
> * As a consequence, remove all modules that vertical modules (i.e. that
> are clearly not useful to all flavors), such as FAQ, Blog, etc. Move
them
> to xwiki-contrib
> * I want to stress out that the current voted strategy is not to
produce a
> minimalist runtime
>
> New Strategy Proposal
> ==================
>
> I’ve tried to reconcile all the use cases listed in this thread before
and
> I hope this proposal could be a good middle
ground. In any case I found
it
> worth debating to see if it could work.
>
> Also note that one aspect that we must not forget (and that led to the
> last proposal I sent on this thread) and that people tend to forget, is
> the time it takes to support various versions of XE in an extension and
the
> manpower that exists in the xwiki community
(don’t forget that
everything
> we do is a tradeoff; if you support another
version of XE in an
extension,
> it means you’re not coding an important
improvement or fixing an
important
> bug in the platform).
>
> So here’s the idea:
>
> * Change the purpose of the XWiki Github organization from the voted one
> described above to be: Provide a minimalist runtime.
> * Since working in this direction will not happen overnight, the idea
> would be to very slowly take out modules, starting with obvious ones.
> * The issue that this strategy raises is that users will not get a good
> user experience since lots of things will be lacking and this is where
my
> new idea fills the gap:
> ** The first time (or whenever you upgrade) your run the XWiki Runtime
(be
> it whether your run the HSQLDB/Jetty
packaging or any other packaging)
you
> get a Configuration wizard
> ** This Configuration Wizard suggest some recommended extensions that
the
> XWiki Core Dev Team hand-pick. We would start
with 2:
> *** Propose to the user to run a Tour to learn how to use XWiki (it
would
> install the Home Page Tour which depends on
the Tour app)
> *** Propose to the user to install the CKEDitor WYSIWYG editor (by
default
> we would only propose the wiki editor - We’ll
need to get rid of the GWT
> editor, probably make it an extension)
>
> Pros:
> * The XWiki Core Dev Team continues to work on core stuff and as time
> progresses we move out non core stuff
> * This allows more people to contribute to the non-core stuff in the
> community
> * We control which extensions we want to recommend and thus we can
always
> only take the very good ones and thus control
the quality of the initial
> user experience
> * We get a mechanism allowing our users to get non-xwiki core dev
> team-supported extensions into the runtime (thus providing a good user
> experience) while not bundling them into the default XWiki runtime
flavor.
>
> Cons:
> * The Tour and CKeditor extensions would still incur a higher cost of
> support/maintenance (but since they’ve already done the code, it’s
marginal
> for the future and they’ll be able to abandon
support for XWiki 6.x soon
> IMO too - Basically they probably only need to support 2 or 2.5 cycle
> versions).
>
> <similar idea>
> Ludo mentioned (and I agree with him) that it would be nice to be able
to
> provide Demo content in the wiki so that
users who want to test drive
XWiki
> can do so with existing content and more
clearly see and understand the
> advantages that XWiki brings. For this, I’d propose to create a Demo
> Content extension (some AWM app + some blog posts + etc) and once we
have
> it, recommend it on the Configuration
Wizard.
> </similar idea>
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>
>> On 08 Jun 2016, at 17:57, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
>>
>> Well, very sorry to drop in so late in this discussion, but it was not
>> obvious from the thread subject that your were discussing a major
> subject.
>>
>> IMO, moving application that works currently on 6.x to the core, has no
>> benefit for our users, it just introduce restrictions. It does not have
> any
>> benefit for us either, it just require more backports. I do not
> understand
>> this move at all for application that are not minimal requirements. I
do
>> not understand your point Vincent when
you say that these applications
> are
>> horizontal and obviously part of platform according to your "Executive
>> summary".
>>
>> Regarding the tour application, it is not require at all, it is just a
> nice
>> helping tool that we want to ease newcomers, but experienced user will
>> never need it. It could be exchanged for an alternative, and it is
> exactly
>> the same kind of application than the blog that we are moving out.
>> Regarding the CKEditor, do we consider that a WYSIWYG editor is
required
>> for a wiki to be a wiki ? IMO, WYSIWYG
editor is not a requirement to
use
>> the platform, it is nice to have, but not
required. I have use it very
>> sparsely until now, and not having it would not have change much for
me.
>>
>> So, I currently do not see any benefit of moving these modules to
> platform,
>> since these are already well living in contrib.
>>
>> Your other point about reducing platform to the minimal runtime would
> cause
>> platform to reduce to EM does not really looks like something that will
>> happen. In theory, you are right, so XWiki would be even less featured
> then
>> maven. But, I doubt you could reasonably use such a tools for anything
>> useful. I doubt XWiki compare to maven. I doubt that horizontal module
> like
>> security, logging, model, storage, etc… will ever be considered
optional.
>> Even a plain text editor is a minimal
requirement to starts, else this
is
>> no more a wiki, and I even wonder what it
is ? a tool that brings
> together
>> arbitrary java module… looks weird. So no, the minimal runtime is
>> definitely not just EM.
>>
>> So, I really wonder what is the direction we are taking. I will not
stop
>> you with a veto, but I have the strong
feeling these decisions are
wrong.
>> For the principle of not depending on
contrib for our default user
> flavor,
>> exchanging the blog app with the tour app, this does not make sens for
> me,
>> sorry.
>>
>> Thanks for reading.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>> FTR I’ve discussed internally with Thomas, Marius and Anca and we all
>>> agreed that it makes sense to move The Tour app + CKEditor to the
> platform.
>>>
>>> There are various reasons but a very important one is simply the
> manpower
>>> that it requires to maintain extensions on lots of XWiki versions and
>>> currently the active devs on xwiki are not enough to do that. This is
> the
>>> reason we dropped this strategy in the past and decided to release the
>>> whole platform together with the same version.
>>>
>>> As part of this the technical debt is being increased since supporting
>>> several versions and old versions means doing hacks.
>>>
>>> If you see another possibility that doesn’t require more work please
> raise
>>> it here.
>>>
>>> We need to progress and have CKEditor and Tour bundled in 8.2M2(which
> is
>>> already started) and thus, barring any negative comments, we’ll start
> the
>>> move next week.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>>> On 07 Jun 2016, at 15:39, Guillaume Delhumeau <
>>> guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It also means to move the tour application in that old branches too.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-06-07 13:59 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>et>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07 Jun 2016, at 10:27, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07 Jun 2016, at 09:37, Guillaume Delhumeau <
>>>>> guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moving Tour Application into platform makes sense to me (it
becomes
> a
>>>>>>> critical component and deserves a proper support).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me, it’s really about the definition of what the XWiki github
org
>>>>> represents. Right now with
the new strategy == “Everything needed
for
>>> the
>>>>> default XWiki runtime, a.k.a base/default flavor” (what we’ve been
>>> calling
>>>>> XE so far but that we’ll slim down a bit, for example by removing
the
>>> Blog
>>>>> app and move it to contrib).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually in practice we would support not only the last XWiki
version
>>> but
>>>>> also the LTS (i.e. 7.4.x + 8.x). If we wanted to support 6.4.x we
> could
>>> (we
>>>>> still have a stable-6.4.x branch ATM that we were supposed to
remove)
>>> but
>>>>> it would mean changing our support strategy to support more
branches…
>>> and
>>>>> it means supporting the whole platform for 6.4.x, not just one
>>> extension…
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
<vincent(a)massol.net>et>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06 Jun 2016, at 15:24, Marius Dumitru Florea <
>>>>>>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Vincent Massol <
> vincent(a)massol.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06 Jun 2016, at 14:50, Marius Dumitru
Florea <
>>>>>>>>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Alexandru
Cotiuga <
>>>>>>>>>>> alexandru.cotiuga(a)xwiki.com> 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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs