10 Apr
2017
10 Apr
'17
12:01 p.m.
Guys as I answered to Vincent and Edy the name only matter if we want
it to be a flavor, something a user install.
If we want to restrict it to be a dependency only (kind of an abstract
flavor) which seems to be the case for almost everyone who answered
this thread then it won't be listed with other flavors and the name
does not really matter much anymore.
I'm fine with that, I just want it to be clear and not debate for ages
if it the end nobody want it to be a flavor :)
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Guillaume Delhumeau
<guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
* XWiki Base (on which you can construct), as a
synonym of "Foundation"
(for a building). Foundation could be misunderstood because of the Software
foundations like Eclipse or Apache.
* XWiki Stand (as a synonym for Base) or XWiki Shelf
* XWiki Kernel (quite technical but I think technical users are the
targeted audience)
* XWiki Nude (ok it could be confusing, especially with the X in XWiki, but
at least the description is good)
* XWiki Bare
* XWiki Skeleton (already proposed by Paul for the KB flavor)
* XWiki Minimum Requirement
I think the best proposition is "Base" but I'm sad we don't find a
better
name.
2017-04-04 14:53 GMT+02:00 Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>om>:
--
Thomas Mortagne
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Eduard Moraru
<enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
(as
"Base"
This is the whole point but it's not really what we are debating here :)
vincent(a)massol.net
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Thomas Mortagne
<
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Defaut/Standard/KB
So as I answered Vincent already: you want to get
rid of this flavor.
Not really, no. I *am* in favor of having a Base Flavor. It would be
invaluable for when writing other flavors (including the one), since it will take care of really basic
setup, like the Velocity
Macro and such. Ideally, a new Flavor should depend on the Base, plus a
handful of applications/extensions and it should be set.
I don't think you understood me :)
What you want is a XAR but it does not need to be a flavor.
The point of a Flavor is to be installed as a top level UI, being a
XAR is enough to be a flavor dependency.
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As I`ve mentioned in the other mail, I`d prefer "Base" or
"Minimal" > > Vincent mentioned as well), mainly
because I would not want users to
be
> > encouraged to use it directly, but
instead, to use a flavor that
builds
on
> top of the Base and brings value (like the "Standard" flavor does).
Here I was just talking about the fact that I prefer to emphasize the
"boilerplate" nature of this flavor, vs the Lite/Mini/etc. which might
imply less resource consumption. Nothing more.
>
> > Now, I`m getting a bit confused here as to the nature of this base
> flavor.
> > Is it a flavor or is it a distribution? Do we also have an XWiki > > distribution (war) that is slimmed down
to support at least the XWiki
> Base
> > *flavor*, and anything else will be installed with EM, according to
what
> any
additional "extended" flavor instructs (i.e. through its
dependencies)?
We have since 8.0 a XWiki distribution (with its WAR and the related
set of jetty/hsqldb, Debian packages, etc.) which contain pretty much
only the strict minimum or platform stuff you can't install easily
with EM (like plugins) and which ask you which flavor you want to
install in the Distribution Wizard (it does not declare any default UI
like XE does).
Cool, then, IMO, we should be promoting only that, and not the XE base
distribution (which we could remove).
Thanks,
Eduard
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eduard
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
> > valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If we want to use this flavor as a dependency for the other Flavors
that
> >> will be built on top, than I would
like it to be called just
"XWiki", so
> >> your 1).
> >> All the other flavors built on top would have composed names like
"XWiki
> >> KB", "XWiki
Groupware", etc.
> >>
> >> Otherwise my vote goes to 3) Base or Basic.
> >>
> >> I think we should first define what this contains. For me it should
not
>>
just be EM, but all the default XWiki capabilities to create content:
from
>> administration, to users, to templates, to editors, to viewers, to
>> livetable, to navigation, etc. :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Caty
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:22, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Vincent Massol < > >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>> Hi,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> On 3 Apr 2017, at 16:18, Thomas Mortagne <
> thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Hi devs,
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Since 8.0 we have in xwiki-platform a flavor simply
called
"XWiki
> >> > >>>> Flavor"
which contains more or less the strict minimum to have
> >> > >>>> something you can call an XWiki instance
(Administration,
> Extension
> >> > >>>> Manager, a home page, etc.).
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Since we want to promote the new Knowledge Base flavor
have a
> >> > >>>> concurrent called "XWiki" is not really
making it a favor so
we
> >> should
> >> > >>>> probably find another name for it.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Here are some ideas:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> 1) "XWiki" Flavor, it's Ok after all
> >> > >>>> 2) "Default" Flavor
> >> > >>>> 3) "Base” Flavor
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> 4) "Lite" Flavor
> >> > >>>> 5) "Mini" Flavor
> >> > >>>> 6) "Minimum" Flavor
> >> > >>>> 7) "Pico" Flavor
> >> > >>>> 8) <another word that means small> Flavor
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> This raises a question: Why do we have such a flavor? I
don’t
> think
> >> we
> >> > need one if we have the KB flavor.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> The only flavor that would make sense to me is a “Base”
flavor
> that
> >> is
> >> > **empty** (ie no wiki pages) and that serves as a common base
minimum
> for
> >> > other flavors. It would contain the bare minimum to have an XWiki
> >> runtime.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Note sure what is your point exactly. You want to discuss if
it's
> >> > >> allowed to install it
as flavor or if it's only a dependency of
> >> > >> another flavor ?
> >> > >
> >> > > My point is that we should only offer 2 things:
> >> > > 1) the KB flavor
> >> > > 2) or let the user not choose any flavor and have an empty wiki
(no
> >> wiki
> >> > pages and minimal set of core extensions)
> >> >
> >> > So you want to remove this flavor. You don't need to install any
> >> > flavor to have an empty wiki.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > What is the “XWiki Flavor” right now? You mentioned that it
> contained
> >> > wiki pages (such as home page):
> >> > >
> >> > > "contains more or less the strict minimum to have
> >> > > something you can call an XWiki instance (Administration,
Extension
> >> > > Manager, a home page,
etc.).”
> >> > >
> >> > > This doesn’t look like the minimum to me.
> >> > >
> >> > > So the first thing to agree is about the scope of this “base”
> flavor.
> >> > Then we can name it.
> >> >
> >> > When it was introduced it was defined as the flavor containing
what we
> >> > think is common to any kind of
flavor, the core UI extensions
> >> > basically like you have the core jar extensions on the WAR side.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > If it’s a minimal empty flavor then the best name for me are:
> >> > > - “Minimal"
> >> > > - "Base"
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks
> >> > > -Vincent
> >> > >
> >> > >> Thanks
> >> > >>> -Vincent
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> I don't think keeping "XWiki" is such a
great idea. Default is
> even
> >> > worst.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> I like "Lite" but might sound too much like
"the very limited
> free
> >> > >>>> version, you are going to have advertisement in a
month"
theses
> >> days.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> If I had to vote for only one it would be
"Mini" but I'm fine
> with
> >> any
> >> > >>>> of the following proposals.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Thanks,
> >> > >>>> --
> >> > >>>> Thomas Mortagne
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Thomas Mortagne
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Thomas Mortagne
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>
--
Thomas Mortagne