9 Oct
2012
9 Oct
'12
1:49 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
If you want name to be more pretty and concise, we should also discuss how
the information lost in changing names are still displayed in EM, since
these information are still useful IMO. I take the occasion to also mention
that EM currently do not seems to sort the list by any means, and this make
the list not really browsable. And if you think about sorting, the current
names are not badly suited.
There is IMO a 4) option, just to be complete since I am not sure I would
be in favor, which is to manage the issue in the UI, parsing our names and
displaying them differently, to be just more pretty.
I would prefer to keep only one name, using the maven one, so 2) seems the
best option after doing nothing, but I am not really happy to loose the
information we have in names currently. So I agree with Vincent, the naming
convention is closely linked to this vote.
Hi devs,
In order to automate the update of extensions imported from
https://github.com/xwiki/ we need to have nothing to modify when an
import is done.
The last remaining thing is the name on which there is a debate is the
name. Right now the name we have in our maven project looks like
"XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Maven" so that's what we get
when importing this project or when viewing it in EM UI.
Some of us want to keep this idish name for Maven build but don't like
it when displaying extension. I recently introduced a way to overwrite
some extension related informations like the name based on properties.
So here are the choices we have:
1) Do nothing which mean display "XWiki Commons - Extension -
Repository - Maven" in EM UI and extensions.xwiki.org
2) Change our naming in Maven <name> property for it to be more a name
than an id that would looks good in EM UI
3) Keep the same naming for Maven <name> and overwrite it everywhere
using <xwiki.extension.name> property
So, WDYT ?
The one that makes the more sense to me is 2) so my +1 goes to this
one. Frankly I don't care too much having the current id based display
of the summary of built modules in Maven build and I personally won't
have any issue to know what name correspond to what project (but
that's because I know them well, I can understand new dev could be a
bit more lost).
Then:
* +0 for 3) to +0 (I don't like too much having this special case
everywhere in our Maven pom.xml)
* -0 for 1) (I agree that it does not looks very nice as a display name).
Exactly the same as Thomas for me. I'd really like if we could find a
solution that works for 2). Even in Maven it's supposed to be a name, i.e.
something readable, not an id… Now even with 2) we would still need a
naming rule and have some concise name.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO