23 May
2012
23 May
'12
1:25 p.m.
3 -1's so there is definitely plenty of agreement in this case.
My understanding is that in "Distribute without legacy modules by default"
"distribute" means "distribute [enterprise and manager]", which would
make this a reversal of
the agreement voted upon here:
http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/devs/2012-April/050386.html
At any rate I am curious as to whether the community wants to ever remove anything. If we
want to
get to the point of removing things then I want to help, if we don't want to then I
will accept it.
The way I see it, breaking API and removing code is like taking out the garbage. When you
do it,
you stink and nobody is your friend. If you don't do it, everything stinks but it does
so a little
at a time. It seems to work reasonably well.. Oracle, Sun and Microsoft have been doing it
for years.
All I care about is that we have a plan, if we want to remove stuff then lets make it
happen, if we
want to never remove anything then lets make it a conscious decision. I don't like the
idea of having
the decision make itself while we put it off.
Caleb
On 05/23/2012 06:09 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Could they be shipped but deactivated by default?
And let the EM activate them? Sounds normal for an EM job though I agree it's an
extra work.
Making it visible is a good way to encourage the people to upgrade their extensions or
make them "visible is old grumps".
paul
Le 23 mai 2012 à 10:34, Thomas Mortagne a écrit :
-1 too, not bundling at least core extensions
legacy modules will make
EM more or less unusable for many extension older than the current
version right now.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs Hi Caleb,
On May 22, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I understand we agreed in
http://lists.xwiki.org/pipermail/devs/2012-March/050172.html to stop
> bundling legacy modules by default. What was not so clear is how we should do this.
>
> I want to remove the modules from XE and Manager, and document the method of
downloading them from
> maven.xwiki.org and replacing the existing .jar files with them.
It's not enough IMO. Here's a likely scenario:
* Users will download the version without legacy modules.
* Then they'll use the Extension Manager to install extensions from
extensions.xwiki.org
* The extensions will fail
* Users will ditch xwiki since it just doesn't work and the quality is perceived as
not good enough.
We need to solve this before we can stop bundling the legacy modules IMO.
> Why:
>
> #1. Not removing API is obviously unsustainable in the long term.
>
> #2. Replacing core .jar files has been judged to be beyond the scope of the extension
manager.
> Whether we want to support overriding classes using extensions as a "function
hooking" mechanism is a possible topic for future discussion.
>
> #3. Replacing .jar files in the .war is not an excessively complex task, we ask users
to open the
> war file for configuring a database or adding JDBC connectors, cases where there is
much less
> technical need to require opening the .war file.
>
>
> Here's my +1 to remove it ASAP, for 4.1M2 if we can get the tests passing.
-1 till we solve the question above. I'd
rather keep legacy modules than have dissatisfied users.
-1 for the same reason.
Thanks,
Marius
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> Caleb
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs