25 Jan
2013
25 Jan
'13
10:07 a.m.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:42 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
This has just been fixed by:
* Thomas reverted all my changes to have nice pretty names on e.x.o, the names on e.x.o
are now the <name> from the POMs
* have committed in http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-8739 the names I had used on
e.x.o so that the next release will fix the names on e.x.o
We still need to decide what solution we want for the long run.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry to revive this the hard way, but I have to complaint !
When I startup my freshly upgraded 4.4.1 Wiki, DW came in and propose me to
upgrade:
XWiki Platform - Application Manager - API 4.3.1 (Upgradable)
XWiki Platform - Wiki Manager - UI 4.3.1 (Upgradable)
XWiki Platform - Wiki Manager - API 4.3.1 (Upgradable)
A optional proposal I have discarded.
In EM, I see, among others, the following installed extensions:
XWiki Platform - Administration - UI 4.4.1 (Uninstallable)
XWiki Platform - Application Manager - API 4.3.1 (Uninstallable)
XWiki Platform - Wiki Manager - UI 4.3.1 (Uninstallable)
XWiki Platform - Wiki Manager - API 4.3.1 (Uninstallable)
but into Add Extension, it propose me, among others, the following:
Administration Application 4.4.1 (Uninstallable)
Application Manager API 4.4.1 (Upgradable)
Application Manager Application 4.2 (Instalable)
Wiki Manager Application 4.4.1 (Upgradable)
Except if I am an expert in XWiki packages, I cannot understand some of
these are the same extensions, others are not.
This cause IMO a lot of confusion, and is almost unusable as is.
Since, we are at the stabilisation stage of our cycle, I expect many will
start looking at DW and EM, and could really get confused, both by the
different status depending on which list you look at, but even more by the
same package taking different names.
Since we were unable to find an agreement of how to name packages, we are
currently impacting a lot usability.
This also block the automation of the upgrade of extension.xwiki.org to the
latest version, and therefore increase confusion even more, and overcharge
the RM.
So, even if we cannot settle our decision on names, at least we need to
make them consistant ASAP. 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.
What Thomas and I are proposing is exactly that: to keep the current names
on e.x.o. Now what you propose when you vote +1 for 1) is the opposite,
i.e. for example instead of having "Blog Application" you'd have
"XWiki
Platform - Blog - UI" (on
http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Blog+Application). I
don't see how worse it could be… :)
The reason we don't have any complaints is exactly because those names are
good!
WDYT ?
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> 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