4 May
2017
4 May
'17
7:48 p.m.
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.org> wrote:
Users are very bad at reading or following
instructions. It's likely
that they will download the file, double click it, and expect it to be
installed automatically.
If the extension is .zip, then the OS will silently unpack it, and the
user won't know what to do next. But since at least something happened,
they might actually think that the file installed itself, then wonder
why it still doesn't work.
If the extension is something special, then the OS won't know what to do
with it, and present a dialog warning that the file can't be opened, and
the user is more likely to search for information about how that file
can be installed.
The downside of it not being a .zip file is that when the user should
unzip it, it's a bit more difficult to do it.
+1 for .xip, it seems that nobody else is using it.
Indeed I was not sure where to look for this. I checked quickly on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_filename_extensions_(S%E2%80%93Z)#X
but it did not felt like the right reference :)
So +1 for xip too.
https://fileinfo.com/extension/xip
On 05/02/2017 10:43 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
into a given
directory and the easiest is to provide a ZIP to them. Even if
we have an import UI, we can still offer the ZIP to that UI…
--
Thomas Mortagne
> On 2 May 2017, at 16:36, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On 2 May 2017, at 16:05, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> I'm currently working on a new package format to package a bunch of
>>> extensions into a single file.
>>>
>>> The first use case is to make offline install easier. We can't count
on
>> all
>>> in one XAR anymore (plus all in one XAR prduces very crappy
extensions)
>> so
>>> I was thinking about providing a generic package containing all the
>>> extensions you need in it. It will simply be a zip containing
extensions
>> in
>>> the same format than Extension Manager local repository so that you
can
>>> unzip it it there (or later use some
UI to "import" it).
>>>
>>> So now I need a name for this new package. Since extension descriptor
>> file
>>> extension is "xed" (for "XWiki Extension Descriptor") I
was thinking
>> about
>>> naming it XEP (for "XWiki Extension Package"). Any better idea ?
>>>
>>> For now my plan is to provide the following:
>>> * a new Maven handler for <packaging>xep</packaging>
>>> * a new Maven mojo "xep" in the existing extension Maven plugin
>>> * start using it with the new platform flavor which is supposed to
>> replace
>>> XE so that people can have something to use for offline installs
>>>
>>> WDYT ?
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> Regarding the naming, assuming we need a file extension other than ZIP,
>> "XWiki Extension Package” seems like a package for a single XWiki
Extension.
>>
>> Some ideas. Why not something in the name that suggest it’s a
repository.
>>
>> For example: XWiki Extension Repository Archive or XWiki Repository
>> Archive for short, which, using a 3LA, would translate into XRA.
>>
>> XAR = XWiki Archive = a single extension
>> XRA = XWiki Repository Archive = a repository of extensions = several
>> extensions
>>
>> We could also have XWiki Extension Repository, i.e. “XER”, which would
>> also be one letter change from XAR:
>>
>> XAR = XWiki Archive = a single extension
>> XER = XWiki Extension Repository = a repository of extensions = several
>> extensions
>>
>
> I'm fine with XER.
>
>
>> Now since the users will need to unzip this binary and they won’t
import
>> it (as they do for XAR), it would be
better for it to be ZIP as
otherwise
>> it’ll harder to unzip (no double-clicking
on it for ex).
>>
>
> As I said I think we'll have a UI for it at some point. I just don't
think
> I will have time to work on that in the new
platform flavor scope (or
maybe
just a
quick tool in
http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Extension+Tweak).
I know you said that but IMO the primary usage is for users to unzip
So at this point, I don’t fully understand why we’d need something other
than
zip.
Sounds like we might be overcomplicated things. On the maven side, we
could use
the maven assembly plugin to generate the zip.
Am I missing something?
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
--
Thomas Mortagne