10 Apr
2012
10 Apr
'12
4:49 p.m.
On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
ok :)
Thanks
-Vincent
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 16:02, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
We don't loose anything since we don't use those long technical names you're
referring to! :) You can check e.x.o you'll see we never use that…
And personally I'm against letting users see: "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML
Macro" for example instead of just "HTML Macro" as we have now. I don't
see users care at all. Developers might care more but we need it to be easy for normal
users of the wiki.
As for the UI, the main issue will be to have a livetable that supports nested items in a
treeview, or to use another UI widget altogether.
Hi Denis,
On Apr 10, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
have.
But doesn't we loose some information that the end user may benefit of,
like knowing the module is from common, platform, rendering, and part of a
I means that you loose that information from the end user POV.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 18:19, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be
> careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since
they're
> used by the EM to display information to the
user. They're also used by
the
> XR application to import extensions located
in maven repository into
> extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
>
> Right now our names are of the type shown here:
> https://gist.github.com/2311321
>
> For example:
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS
[0.004s]
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API
................... SUCCESS
[2.066s]
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler -
Parent POM .. SUCCESS
[0.017s]
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler -
JAR ......... SUCCESS
[0.133s]
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository
- Parent POM SUCCESS
> [0.004s]
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS
[0.132s]
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository
- XWiki .... SUCCESS
[0.006s]
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository
- XWiki model SUCCESS
> [0.188s]
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS
[0.010s]
> [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository
- XWiki handler SUCCESS
> [0.024s]
>
> These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than
> names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice
> for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
>
> I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use
> English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
>
> For example, for the example show above we could have:
>
> Extensions
> Extension API
> Extension Handlers
> JAR Extension Handler
> Extension Repositories
> Aether Extension Repository
> XWiki Extension Repository
> XWiki Extension Repository Model
> XWiki Extension Repository API
> XWiki Extension Repository Handler
>
> The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that
would
be used
by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means
even more maintenance work.
+1 to use name
>
> While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when
> displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we larger module extension. Just wonder if that
information is really
useless
to the end user. Another information that seems
to me lost, is that all
these modules, which are closely related, will not be close to each other
in an alphabetically ordered list.
Couldn't we found a more structured rules to help these matters ?
Currently, the new names are nicer, but less informative IMO.
We don't loose this information actually :) (it's always there in the
<parent>).
Each extension has a list of dependent extensions
(they're event listed in
the XR UI). We could easily add in the XR UI the lists of extensions that
uses the current extension.
Of course, this would be nice to have, but this does not means the
structure provided by the original naming is useless. Maybe this is simply
a matter of UI, but until the UI is better, we loose information IMO, I am
just not really sure it is better than technical names. IMO it's
even a good thing to do in the future.
I said +1 to use name and not another markup, and +0 about the convention
you propose about naming. So I guess I am +0 :) +0
You said +1 above and +0 here but there's only one VOTE ;) So I guess
you're +1.
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>>> Here's my +1
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent