28 Aug
2012
28 Aug
'12
4:37 p.m.
On Aug 28, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
There are 2 topics:
* Create a generic format for all xwiki extensions (the META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml),
nothing to do with wiki pages
* Modify the existing XAR format descriptor (package.xml) to remove stuff that are 1) not
needed (like the list of files and 2) can be found in the extension information (i.e. in
META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml)
So far you/we have decided that the xwiki extension format will be the pom.xml format
which is why we are using it in our JAR file to discover extensions. Based on that
it's not logical to invent a new way to add extension information even if the existing
package.xml contains already some information that happens (by pure coincidence) to be the
same as the one needed by the extension manager (for ex the version in package.xml could
be a completely different version than the extension version).
Based on this the logic is to add the pom.xml file to the XAR.
Now you said that you didn't think using the Maven format is good. Fine. This is a
change from what we had decided so far and I'm ready to accept that we may want to
dissociate from Maven; hence my proposal about the META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml file.
So we have 2 choices for me:
* continue with the current rule of using pom.xml files as containing extension
information
* decide to bite the bullet and invent a new format for holding extension information
Those are the 2 *good* choices for me. Ofc we need to handle backward compat as best as we
can but that's doable.
You'd like to do the 3rd choice which IMO is a quick and dirty solution. I'd
accept it but only as a quick hack for 4.2 and that we would need to correct ASAP.
On Aug 28, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Maybe but that's a different subject and IMO it sounds like creating a
new packaging format for wiki pages. 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.
On Aug 28, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Mortagne
> <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>> 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.
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.
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. I need something for 4.2 and
adding the id in package.xml along with the other existing extension
informations is quick, easy, fully retro compatible and does not
really introduce anything new.
Sure but it does introduce something new: the new information you add to package.xml. And
this is exactly like a public API; once it's there we have to support it and be retro
compatible. So we have to be careful because it's a pain to change after.
I'm curious to know what others think about this.
Thanks
-Vincent
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>>> 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