27 Nov
2012
27 Nov
'12
6:59 p.m.
Hi,
I`m with Denis on this one.
Besides knowing from which module the sub-module is, you also lose
top-module information. Couple that with the fact that we have some modules
with almost identical names in both platform and commons (due to partial
moving to commons of some sub-modules), it will become a bit tricky to know
which one is actually mentioned. Displaying the extension ID in the EM
would help a bit on this aspect.
Another inconvenient of pretty names is that they can get messy fast. In
lack of a convention, we risk confusing users more than helping them.
Besides that, we will be very tempted to name modules by a similar scheme
that we have today, due to the hierarchical nature and the "part-whole"
relationship between modules. I am not sure on what improvement we will
have with this approach (option 2), instead of maybe dropping the "-"
characters from the pretty name.
Extension search also should work on, since users search for keywords and
that's generally what we use right now in the module names. Adding a lot of
stopwords around those keywords (like Extension Repository *for* Maven) is
not much of an UX improvement IMO.
Do we, by any chance have some reports/complaints from user about the
current way of naming extensions? I find the we currently have a decent
balance between technical and pretty names. We generally have 3 to 4
components in the module's name and, rarely, in some modules that are not
really exposed to the user (corner cases), we might exceed that to 5-6.
So my vote is:
+1 for 1)
+0 for 2)
-1 for 3)
Thanks,
Eduard
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
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:
> 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.
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.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs