13 Jun
2017
13 Jun
'17
3:16 p.m.
The examples given are the names of the extension so what you see in
Extension Manager which is not a specific Flavor context.
As for having a different name in the Flavor picker and Extension
Manager this is a feature that would need to be added since there is
no flavor name property right now in the extension descriptor (but
sure it's not very complex technically).
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
On 13 Jun 2017, at 14:48, Eduard Moraru
<enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Daniel,
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:42 PM, daniel glazman <daniel.glazman(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
This is what I said in my previous email too. And BTW we may not need to drag “XWiki”
either, especially since I’ve suggested to display the “developed by” in the DW UI so that
users know who developed it and who’s supporting it.
Now, the full name outside of the DW context would still be "<affiliation>
<qualifier> Flavor”, as in "XWiki Standard Flavor”, “XWiki SAS Procedure
Flavor”, “XWiki Demo Flavor”, etc.
Thanks
-Vincent
> *
"Base XWiki Flavor”
> * “Classic XWiki Flavor”
> * “Raw XWiki Flavor”
> * “Starter XWiki Flavor”
> * "Default XWiki Flavor”
> * "Generic XWiki Flavor”
> * “Standard XWiki Flavor”
> * "XWiki Flavor”
> * "Vanilla XWiki"
Sorry to send this message without the threading references; I just
subscribed to the devs(a)xwiki.org mailing-list and I would like to
contribute my €0.02 to the discussion The items below are numbered for
commenting convenience but are not ordered in any way.
1. The name XWiki already has its first letter at the end of the alphabet.
Marketing-wise in the Software ecosystem, lists of apps are most often
alphabetically sorted, granting a bonus to apps with a name in A, B or C,
and a minus to the end of the alphabet. So all names there have to
counterbalance that handicap and I think "self-descriptiveness" does
matter.
2. if you except "XWiki Flavor", the
word "XWiki" comes in second position
in all proposals, and that is not the best thing ever.
So you`re suggesting "XWiki Standard" instead of "Standard XWiki
Flavor",
right? Sounds good to me, specially since I`m not a fan of dragging along
the word "Flavor" when the result will be displayed in a list of
"flavors"
(i.e. it's redundant). 3. the name must be chosen wrt the targeted
audience and the product's
position on the market. I think Olivier has a point when he writes « what
is the audience and the objectives ? »
4. more specifically about the proposals above:
4.1. a "flavor" holds the notion of specialization.
4.2. "Classic" can mean "legacy" in the Software world. Use
carefully...
4.3. "Vanilla" is a geeky choice. Nobody else but geeks will get
it,sorry.
IMHO, "XWiki Foundation", "XWiki Core" or "XWiki Starter
Kit" represent
quite well what this is all about.
I think you`re mixing it with the Minimal (/Base/Core) flavor. We`re
currently addressing the flavor that is to mirror the current XE
distribution, with all the bells and whistles (hence the
"Standard"/"Default" suggestions). It builds upon the Minimal
distribution
(like other flavors should do).
Thanks,
Eduard
>
> </Daniel>