9 Aug
2011
9 Aug
'11
10:20 a.m.
Hi devs,
I've updated the doc on
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/JavaCodeStyle#HPackagenames
From:
* All code that is **not** moved to the new XWiki Architecture based on components should
use ##com.xpn.xwiki##. New architecture code should use ##org.xwiki##.
To:
* All code that is not located in the oldcore module should use ##org.xwiki##.
Hope it's ok with you.
Thanks
-Vincent
9 Aug
9 Aug
10:39 a.m.
+1
How should we signify code which depends on the oldcore and is interrelated so that it can
be separated from code which does not?
I have so far been using com.xpn.xwiki mainly to indicate "this code will be gone
when oldcore goes".
Perhaps adding a -legacy to the module name?
Caleb
On 08/09/2011 04:20 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi devs,
I've updated the doc on
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/JavaCodeStyle#HPackagenames
From:
* All code that is **not** moved to the new XWiki Architecture based on components should
use ##com.xpn.xwiki##. New architecture code should use ##org.xwiki##.
To:
* All code that is not located in the oldcore module should use ##org.xwiki##.
Hope it's ok with you.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
10:54 a.m.
On Aug 9, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
+1
How should we signify code which depends on the oldcore and is interrelated so that it
can be separated from code which does not?
Well our rules is that all new modules must not have direct dependencies on the old core
and instead go through the bridge.
Whenever we couldn't do this we've put the classes in the old core.
I know there are some exceptions:
- some people have not followed this rule
- in some cases putting stuff in old core wasn't good enough
I have so far been using com.xpn.xwiki mainly to
indicate "this code will be gone when oldcore goes".
The problem is using com.xpn is plain wrong in general and we need to move away from it
(the xpn company doesn't exist anymore + this is commercial package where we're
doing non commercial open source dev ).
Perhaps adding a -legacy to the module name?
We already have a -legacy module for deprecated stuff that shouldn't be used. It's
usage is different so I wouldn't use -legacy for that.
I'd do as we currently do:
- go through the model bridge
- put classes in old core when there's no other way
- (longer run) refactor more foundational code by rewriting it as separate modules and
thus allowing new code to use it without depending on the old core
Our main issue right now is that almost nobody in the devs are working on improving our
foundations (i.e. introducing/working on new architecture modules). Here are some modules
for which work has started but not finished:
- xwiki-action
- xwiki-url
- xwiki-skin
- xwiki-model
- xwiki-localization
- xwiki-users
- xwiki-rights
- etc.
Thanks
-Vincent
Caleb
On 08/09/2011 04:20 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I've updated the doc on
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/JavaCodeStyle#HPackagenames
>
> From:
> * All code that is **not** moved to the new XWiki Architecture based on components
should use ##com.xpn.xwiki##. New architecture code should use ##org.xwiki##.
>
> To:
> * All code that is not located in the oldcore module should use ##org.xwiki##.
>
> Hope it's ok with you.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
12:58 p.m.
On 08/09/2011 04:54 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Aug 9, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
I guess I have made a mistake then in store and not put things where they should be.
+1
How should we signify code which depends on the oldcore and is interrelated so that it
can be separated from code which does not?
Well our rules is that all new modules must not have direct dependencies on the old core
and instead go through the bridge.
Whenever we couldn't do this we've put the classes in the old core.
I know there are some exceptions:
- some people have not followed this rule - in some cases putting stuff in old core wasn't
good enough
Just because you put up a bridge doesn't eliminate the dependency on the old core.
Looking at the existing bridges, particularly DocumentAccessBridge, I see no way
that the new core is ever going to be able to implement all of those apis so anything that
depends on the bridge depends on the old core.
Not to criticize the idea of a bridge in general, I just think that we still need some
separation of the "consumer" code that will need to be modified when the
old core is dropped, and the "producer" code which will need no modification at
all.
I have done that in -store. store-api, store-transaction, store-filesystem, and
store-serialization have no dependency on the old core while
store-filesystem-attachments does.
I suppose it would work just to separate out the code into different modules which either
do or don't depend on core/bridge so that core is as well contained as possible.
Caleb
I have so far been using com.xpn.xwiki mainly to
indicate "this code will be gone when oldcore goes".
The problem is using com.xpn is plain wrong in general and we need to move away from it
(the xpn company doesn't exist anymore + this is commercial package where we're
doing non commercial open source dev ).
Perhaps adding a -legacy to the module name?
We already have a -legacy module for deprecated stuff that shouldn't be used.
It's usage is different so I wouldn't use -legacy for that.
I'd do as we currently do:
- go through the model bridge - put classes in old core when there's no other
way
- (longer run) refactor more foundational code by rewriting it as separate modules and
thus allowing new code to use it without depending on the old core
Our main issue right now is that almost nobody in the devs are working on improving our
foundations (i.e. introducing/working on new architecture modules). Here are some modules
for which work has started but not finished:
- xwiki-action
- xwiki-url
- xwiki-skin
- xwiki-model
- xwiki-localization
- xwiki-users
- xwiki-rights
- etc.
Thanks
-Vincent
Caleb
On 08/09/2011 04:20 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I've updated the doc on
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/JavaCodeStyle#HPackagenames
>
> From:
> * All code that is **not** moved to the new XWiki Architecture based on components
should use ##com.xpn.xwiki##. New architecture code should use ##org.xwiki##.
>
> To:
> * All code that is not located in the oldcore module should use ##org.xwiki##.
>
> Hope it's ok with you.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
4840
days inactive
4840
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Caleb James DeLisle -
Vincent Massol