[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Change our Maven POM Names and Description for Extension Manager
Hi devs, Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO). Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321 For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s] These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI. I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix. For example, for the example show above we could have: Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work. While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have. Here's my +1 Thanks -Vincent
+1 Thanks, Marius On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
Here's my +1
+1, using names as... names sounds the best choice to me.
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 18:19, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
+1 to use name
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
But doesn't we loose some information that the end user may benefit of, like knowing the module is from common, platform, rendering, and part of a larger module extension. Just wonder if that information is really useless to the end user. Another information that seems to me lost, is that all these modules, which are closely related, will not be close to each other in an alphabetically ordered list. Couldn't we found a more structured rules to help these matters ? Currently, the new names are nicer, but less informative IMO. +0
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO
Hi Denis, On Apr 10, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 18:19, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
+1 to use name
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
But doesn't we loose some information that the end user may benefit of, like knowing the module is from common, platform, rendering, and part of a larger module extension. Just wonder if that information is really useless to the end user. Another information that seems to me lost, is that all these modules, which are closely related, will not be close to each other in an alphabetically ordered list.
Couldn't we found a more structured rules to help these matters ?
Currently, the new names are nicer, but less informative IMO.
We don't loose this information actually :) (it's always there in the <parent>). Each extension has a list of dependent extensions (they're event listed in the XR UI). We could easily add in the XR UI the lists of extensions that uses the current extension. IMO it's even a good thing to do in the future.
+0
You said +1 above and +0 here but there's only one VOTE ;) So I guess you're +1. Thanks -Vincent
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 16:02, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Denis,
On Apr 10, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 18:19, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
+1 to use name
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we
have.
But doesn't we loose some information that the end user may benefit of, like knowing the module is from common, platform, rendering, and part of a larger module extension. Just wonder if that information is really useless to the end user. Another information that seems to me lost, is that all these modules, which are closely related, will not be close to each other in an alphabetically ordered list.
Couldn't we found a more structured rules to help these matters ?
Currently, the new names are nicer, but less informative IMO.
We don't loose this information actually :) (it's always there in the <parent>).
I means that you loose that information from the end user POV.
Each extension has a list of dependent extensions (they're event listed in the XR UI). We could easily add in the XR UI the lists of extensions that uses the current extension.
Of course, this would be nice to have, but this does not means the structure provided by the original naming is useless. Maybe this is simply a matter of UI, but until the UI is better, we loose information IMO, I am just not really sure it is better than technical names.
IMO it's even a good thing to do in the future.
+0
You said +1 above and +0 here but there's only one VOTE ;) So I guess you're +1.
I said +1 to use name and not another markup, and +0 about the convention you propose about naming. So I guess I am +0 :)
Thanks -Vincent
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO
On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 16:02, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Denis,
On Apr 10, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 18:19, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
+1 to use name
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we
have.
But doesn't we loose some information that the end user may benefit of, like knowing the module is from common, platform, rendering, and part of a larger module extension. Just wonder if that information is really useless to the end user. Another information that seems to me lost, is that all these modules, which are closely related, will not be close to each other in an alphabetically ordered list.
Couldn't we found a more structured rules to help these matters ?
Currently, the new names are nicer, but less informative IMO.
We don't loose this information actually :) (it's always there in the <parent>).
I means that you loose that information from the end user POV.
Each extension has a list of dependent extensions (they're event listed in the XR UI). We could easily add in the XR UI the lists of extensions that uses the current extension.
Of course, this would be nice to have, but this does not means the structure provided by the original naming is useless. Maybe this is simply a matter of UI, but until the UI is better, we loose information IMO, I am just not really sure it is better than technical names.
We don't loose anything since we don't use those long technical names you're referring to! :) You can check e.x.o you'll see we never use that… And personally I'm against letting users see: "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro" for example instead of just "HTML Macro" as we have now. I don't see users care at all. Developers might care more but we need it to be easy for normal users of the wiki. As for the UI, the main issue will be to have a livetable that supports nested items in a treeview, or to use another UI widget altogether.
IMO it's even a good thing to do in the future.
+0
You said +1 above and +0 here but there's only one VOTE ;) So I guess you're +1.
I said +1 to use name and not another markup, and +0 about the convention you propose about naming. So I guess I am +0 :)
ok :) Thanks -Vincent
Thanks -Vincent
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
Hi Vincent, On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
I`m not trilled at all about seeing this in my maven console. We lose any (1) consistency of display and (2) module membership. (1) is pretty obvious since "Extensions" is at plural (and misleading btw, since it's just a parent module), "Extension API" is at singular, "JAR Extension Handler" is not prefixed by the module and so on. Plus, imagine if the extensions view is sorted by extension name (not currently implemented). About (2), I consider it to be useful extremely to a user to get an idea from a glance of where that "thing" (that his extension is or depends on) actually is and where it comes from. If you look at the other 3rd party extenions, you will see "Commons X" (ok, module X comes from Commons -- "Commons BeanUtils"), "Jetty :: X" (ok, module X comes from Jetty -- "Jetty :: IO Utility") and so on. I understand that this can be seen as a maven limitation, but all the other projects are working around it like we also did. On the other hand, projects like Commons are library projects that have pretty much a flat structure (<Project Name> <Module Name>). Since in XWiki pretty much everything is an extension, the Core Extensions section (EM UI) will be flooded with xwiki modules which are pretty complex in hierarchy and which will confuse the user when they are all displayed on the same level. I`m -0, towards -1 on the initial proposal. If we really think that we have a problem on this area, I propose that we introduce a convention for module names that both displays module membership but does not overdo it (a combination of what you propose and what we currently have): <ProjectName> - <Feature/ModuleName> - <SubModulePrettyName> Example: XWiki Commons - Extension - API XWiki Commons - Extension - Aether Repository XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Model XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Handler XWiki Platform - Annotations - UI XWiki Platform - Blog <-- has no submodule XWiki Rendering - Macro - HTML etc. The main idea was to make sure that we don`t have any extra levels in <SubModulePrettyName>. IMO, 3 levels is decent from a user's POV and should be enough for devs when structuring their code. If you think about it, that`s pretty much what we already do in the maven project structure. If the extensions view only displayed XWiki extensions (without 3rd party modules from other projects) then your initial proposal would have been relevant from the user's POV (though still not good for developers). Maven is at hart a development tool. Yes, we`ve decided to reuse it on the user side as well, but we should not trade a working dev practice for a pretty name that will not even be useful to the user anyway. I fail to envision a practical usecase for the development process where the maven console displays pretty names. It will just be a string blob that will make things harder. WDYT? P.S.: I`m +0 for the new proposal, since I am quite happy with the current setup. Thanks, Eduard
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi, On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
I`m not trilled at all about seeing this in my maven console. We lose any (1) consistency of display and (2) module membership.
(1) is pretty obvious since "Extensions" is at plural (and misleading btw, since it's just a parent module), "Extension API" is at singular, "JAR Extension Handler" is not prefixed by the module and so on. Plus, imagine if the extensions view is sorted by extension name (not currently implemented).
About (2), I consider it to be useful extremely to a user to get an idea from a glance of where that "thing" (that his extension is or depends on) actually is and where it comes from.
If you look at the other 3rd party extenions, you will see "Commons X" (ok, module X comes from Commons -- "Commons BeanUtils"), "Jetty :: X" (ok, module X comes from Jetty -- "Jetty :: IO Utility") and so on. I understand that this can be seen as a maven limitation, but all the other projects are working around it like we also did.
On the other hand, projects like Commons are library projects that have pretty much a flat structure (<Project Name> <Module Name>). Since in XWiki pretty much everything is an extension, the Core Extensions section (EM UI) will be flooded with xwiki modules which are pretty complex in hierarchy and which will confuse the user when they are all displayed on the same level.
I`m -0, towards -1 on the initial proposal.
If we really think that we have a problem on this area, I propose that we introduce a convention for module names that both displays module membership but does not overdo it (a combination of what you propose and what we currently have): <ProjectName> - <Feature/ModuleName> - <SubModulePrettyName>
Example: XWiki Commons - Extension - API XWiki Commons - Extension - Aether Repository XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Model XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Handler XWiki Platform - Annotations - UI XWiki Platform - Blog <-- has no submodule XWiki Rendering - Macro - HTML etc.
The main idea was to make sure that we don`t have any extra levels in <SubModulePrettyName>. IMO, 3 levels is decent from a user's POV and should be enough for devs when structuring their code. If you think about it, that`s pretty much what we already do in the maven project structure.
If the extensions view only displayed XWiki extensions (without 3rd party modules from other projects) then your initial proposal would have been relevant from the user's POV (though still not good for developers).
Maven is at hart a development tool. Yes, we`ve decided to reuse it on the user side as well, but we should not trade a working dev practice for a pretty name that will not even be useful to the user anyway. I fail to envision a practical usecase for the development process where the maven console displays pretty names. It will just be a string blob that will make things harder.
WDYT?
<Answer on naming> I was the one who defined both the names we use in our pom.xml, the id in our pom.xml and our directory names. I have chosen to use a structure that represents the full name in all places: * For names: XWiki Commons - Extension - API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api * For directories: xwiki-commons-extension-api/ I've been told that we prefer to use simpler names since the hierarchy already contains the information about the project. This proposal (which is not yet implemented but decided AFAIK) initially came from the fact that long directory names don't work on Windows. It's the same for names. You don't need to have the full "path" in a pom.xml name to know where it's coming from since it's contained in a pom.xml which has a location. * For names: Extension API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api (we need the full name for id since we use a fixed groupid ATM. We could drop the first path though if we really and have only "extension-api" since the group id is "org.xwiki.commons" but since this is a technical id I'm not sure it's a good idea and it's not the topic of this mail anyway ;)) * For directories: api/ (more precisely: commons/extension/api/) Thus using short names is not shocking at all. To be honest I doubt anyone is really using the name when developing. Having a short name wouldn't be an issue. </Answer on naming> I think the main point where I have not been clear is that there has never been any intention of having XWiki modules displayed flat in the Extensions Home Page livetable :) If that had been the intention then we would definitely have needed a long name to group stuff together. But again it's not the intention at all. Why not? Simply because it doesn't scale and would mean showing lots of stuff to users, flooding them. So we need to talk about what we're doing now and future… * Now: We only display modules that are either relevant to the user (ie that they can download) or modules that are used as documentation points. We're not planning to import all modules. The idea is to continue importing only extensions useful to users or top level modules to hold the documentation for that module. * Future: I think the best representation for the future will be the following: - a treeview when you wish to browser everything. So to take the example of "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro" it would be under the XWiki Rendering/Macros/HTML Macro tree nodes - if you start typing letters in this treeview-livetable widget you'll see all the extensions matching the letters you type, in a flat view (no longer hierarchical) - we will continue to have tags to provide categorizations of extensions: for example "'Macros", "Applications", "LDAP", "HTML", etc - we will also need a view (probably the default - the treeview would be a tab to click to get it) which is a flat view listed by user ratings. So the most used extensions will get better ratings and will show at the top, thus making the more technical or less used extensions got at the bottom of the list. - When displayed in flat view, we could easily display the location of the extension on the next line in smaller characters and in grey color instead of black for example (to make it less visible) To conclude: it's very important that we have a pretty name as the name. This is the intent of Maven's pom.xml <name> tag. The hierarchy is provided by the <parent> information and can easily be gathered and displayed, whether you are in maven (mvn dependency:tree, your IDE) or in the EM UI.
P.S.: I`m +0 for the new proposal, since I am quite happy with the current setup.
What new proposal? Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Eduard
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
On Apr 11, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
I`m not trilled at all about seeing this in my maven console. We lose any (1) consistency of display and (2) module membership.
(1) is pretty obvious since "Extensions" is at plural (and misleading btw, since it's just a parent module), "Extension API" is at singular, "JAR Extension Handler" is not prefixed by the module and so on. Plus, imagine if the extensions view is sorted by extension name (not currently implemented).
About (2), I consider it to be useful extremely to a user to get an idea from a glance of where that "thing" (that his extension is or depends on) actually is and where it comes from.
If you look at the other 3rd party extenions, you will see "Commons X" (ok, module X comes from Commons -- "Commons BeanUtils"), "Jetty :: X" (ok, module X comes from Jetty -- "Jetty :: IO Utility") and so on. I understand that this can be seen as a maven limitation, but all the other projects are working around it like we also did.
On the other hand, projects like Commons are library projects that have pretty much a flat structure (<Project Name> <Module Name>). Since in XWiki pretty much everything is an extension, the Core Extensions section (EM UI) will be flooded with xwiki modules which are pretty complex in hierarchy and which will confuse the user when they are all displayed on the same level.
I`m -0, towards -1 on the initial proposal.
If we really think that we have a problem on this area, I propose that we introduce a convention for module names that both displays module membership but does not overdo it (a combination of what you propose and what we currently have): <ProjectName> - <Feature/ModuleName> - <SubModulePrettyName>
Example: XWiki Commons - Extension - API XWiki Commons - Extension - Aether Repository XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Model XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Handler XWiki Platform - Annotations - UI XWiki Platform - Blog <-- has no submodule XWiki Rendering - Macro - HTML etc.
The main idea was to make sure that we don`t have any extra levels in <SubModulePrettyName>. IMO, 3 levels is decent from a user's POV and should be enough for devs when structuring their code. If you think about it, that`s pretty much what we already do in the maven project structure.
If the extensions view only displayed XWiki extensions (without 3rd party modules from other projects) then your initial proposal would have been relevant from the user's POV (though still not good for developers).
Maven is at hart a development tool. Yes, we`ve decided to reuse it on the user side as well, but we should not trade a working dev practice for a pretty name that will not even be useful to the user anyway. I fail to envision a practical usecase for the development process where the maven console displays pretty names. It will just be a string blob that will make things harder.
WDYT?
<Answer on naming>
I was the one who defined both the names we use in our pom.xml, the id in our pom.xml and our directory names. I have chosen to use a structure that represents the full name in all places:
* For names: XWiki Commons - Extension - API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api * For directories: xwiki-commons-extension-api/
I've been told that we prefer to use simpler names since the hierarchy already contains the information about the project. This proposal (which is not yet implemented but decided AFAIK) initially came from the fact that long directory names don't work on Windows.
It's the same for names. You don't need to have the full "path" in a pom.xml name to know where it's coming from since it's contained in a pom.xml which has a location.
* For names: Extension API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api (we need the full name for id since we use a fixed groupid ATM. We could drop the first path though if we really and have only "extension-api" since the group id is "org.xwiki.commons" but since this is a technical id I'm not sure it's a good idea and it's not the topic of this mail anyway ;)) * For directories: api/ (more precisely: commons/extension/api/)
Thus using short names is not shocking at all. To be honest I doubt anyone is really using the name when developing. Having a short name wouldn't be an issue.
FTR Maven POM Reference (http://maven.apache.org/pom.html) says the following about the <name> element: " name: Projects tend to have conversational names, beyond the artifactId. The Sun engineers did not refer to their project as "java-1.5", but rather just called it "Tiger". Here is where to set that value. " The name is not supposed to be an id. There's artifactid for that. Thanks -Vincent
</Answer on naming>
I think the main point where I have not been clear is that there has never been any intention of having XWiki modules displayed flat in the Extensions Home Page livetable :)
If that had been the intention then we would definitely have needed a long name to group stuff together. But again it's not the intention at all. Why not? Simply because it doesn't scale and would mean showing lots of stuff to users, flooding them.
So we need to talk about what we're doing now and future…
* Now: We only display modules that are either relevant to the user (ie that they can download) or modules that are used as documentation points. We're not planning to import all modules. The idea is to continue importing only extensions useful to users or top level modules to hold the documentation for that module.
* Future: I think the best representation for the future will be the following: - a treeview when you wish to browser everything. So to take the example of "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro" it would be under the XWiki Rendering/Macros/HTML Macro tree nodes - if you start typing letters in this treeview-livetable widget you'll see all the extensions matching the letters you type, in a flat view (no longer hierarchical) - we will continue to have tags to provide categorizations of extensions: for example "'Macros", "Applications", "LDAP", "HTML", etc - we will also need a view (probably the default - the treeview would be a tab to click to get it) which is a flat view listed by user ratings. So the most used extensions will get better ratings and will show at the top, thus making the more technical or less used extensions got at the bottom of the list. - When displayed in flat view, we could easily display the location of the extension on the next line in smaller characters and in grey color instead of black for example (to make it less visible)
To conclude: it's very important that we have a pretty name as the name. This is the intent of Maven's pom.xml <name> tag. The hierarchy is provided by the <parent> information and can easily be gathered and displayed, whether you are in maven (mvn dependency:tree, your IDE) or in the EM UI.
P.S.: I`m +0 for the new proposal, since I am quite happy with the current setup.
What new proposal?
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Eduard
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Apr 11, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
I`m not trilled at all about seeing this in my maven console. We lose any (1) consistency of display and (2) module membership.
(1) is pretty obvious since "Extensions" is at plural (and misleading btw, since it's just a parent module), "Extension API" is at singular, "JAR Extension Handler" is not prefixed by the module and so on. Plus, imagine if the extensions view is sorted by extension name (not currently implemented).
About (2), I consider it to be useful extremely to a user to get an idea from a glance of where that "thing" (that his extension is or depends on) actually is and where it comes from.
If you look at the other 3rd party extenions, you will see "Commons X" (ok, module X comes from Commons -- "Commons BeanUtils"), "Jetty :: X" (ok, module X comes from Jetty -- "Jetty :: IO Utility") and so on. I understand that this can be seen as a maven limitation, but all the other projects are working around it like we also did.
On the other hand, projects like Commons are library projects that have pretty much a flat structure (<Project Name> <Module Name>). Since in XWiki pretty much everything is an extension, the Core Extensions section (EM UI) will be flooded with xwiki modules which are pretty complex in hierarchy and which will confuse the user when they are all displayed on the same level.
I`m -0, towards -1 on the initial proposal.
If we really think that we have a problem on this area, I propose that we introduce a convention for module names that both displays module membership but does not overdo it (a combination of what you propose and what we currently have): <ProjectName> - <Feature/ModuleName> - <SubModulePrettyName>
Example: XWiki Commons - Extension - API XWiki Commons - Extension - Aether Repository XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Model XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Handler XWiki Platform - Annotations - UI XWiki Platform - Blog <-- has no submodule XWiki Rendering - Macro - HTML etc.
The main idea was to make sure that we don`t have any extra levels in <SubModulePrettyName>. IMO, 3 levels is decent from a user's POV and should be enough for devs when structuring their code. If you think about it, that`s pretty much what we already do in the maven project structure.
If the extensions view only displayed XWiki extensions (without 3rd party modules from other projects) then your initial proposal would have been relevant from the user's POV (though still not good for developers).
Maven is at hart a development tool. Yes, we`ve decided to reuse it on the user side as well, but we should not trade a working dev practice for a pretty name that will not even be useful to the user anyway. I fail to envision a practical usecase for the development process where the maven console displays pretty names. It will just be a string blob that will make things harder.
WDYT?
<Answer on naming>
I was the one who defined both the names we use in our pom.xml, the id in our pom.xml and our directory names. I have chosen to use a structure that represents the full name in all places:
* For names: XWiki Commons - Extension - API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api * For directories: xwiki-commons-extension-api/
I've been told that we prefer to use simpler names since the hierarchy already contains the information about the project. This proposal (which is not yet implemented but decided AFAIK) initially came from the fact that long directory names don't work on Windows.
It's the same for names. You don't need to have the full "path" in a pom.xml name to know where it's coming from since it's contained in a pom.xml which has a location.
* For names: Extension API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api (we need the full name for id since we use a fixed groupid ATM. We could drop the first path though if we really and have only "extension-api" since the group id is "org.xwiki.commons" but since this is a technical id I'm not sure it's a good idea and it's not the topic of this mail anyway ;)) * For directories: api/ (more precisely: commons/extension/api/)
Thus using short names is not shocking at all. To be honest I doubt anyone is really using the name when developing. Having a short name wouldn't be an issue.
FTR Maven POM Reference (http://maven.apache.org/pom.html) says the following about the <name> element:
" name: Projects tend to have conversational names, beyond the artifactId. The Sun engineers did not refer to their project as "java-1.5", but rather just called it "Tiger". Here is where to set that value. "
The name is not supposed to be an id. There's artifactid for that.
Again, an example of a top level project. Works well for small top level projects too. But I don`t think it works that well for submodules of bigger projects. Anyway, my vote is non-binding but I still think it will lose developer value in favour of an insignificant user value. Thanks, Eduard
Thanks -Vincent
</Answer on naming>
I think the main point where I have not been clear is that there has never been any intention of having XWiki modules displayed flat in the Extensions Home Page livetable :)
If that had been the intention then we would definitely have needed a long name to group stuff together. But again it's not the intention at all. Why not? Simply because it doesn't scale and would mean showing lots of stuff to users, flooding them.
So we need to talk about what we're doing now and future…
* Now: We only display modules that are either relevant to the user (ie that they can download) or modules that are used as documentation points. We're not planning to import all modules. The idea is to continue importing only extensions useful to users or top level modules to hold the documentation for that module.
* Future: I think the best representation for the future will be the following: - a treeview when you wish to browser everything. So to take the example of "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro" it would be under the XWiki Rendering/Macros/HTML Macro tree nodes - if you start typing letters in this treeview-livetable widget you'll see all the extensions matching the letters you type, in a flat view (no longer hierarchical) - we will continue to have tags to provide categorizations of extensions: for example "'Macros", "Applications", "LDAP", "HTML", etc - we will also need a view (probably the default - the treeview would be a tab to click to get it) which is a flat view listed by user ratings. So the most used extensions will get better ratings and will show at the top, thus making the more technical or less used extensions got at the bottom of the list. - When displayed in flat view, we could easily display the location of the extension on the next line in smaller characters and in grey color instead of black for example (to make it less visible)
To conclude: it's very important that we have a pretty name as the name. This is the intent of Maven's pom.xml <name> tag. The hierarchy is provided by the <parent> information and can easily be gathered and displayed, whether you are in maven (mvn dependency:tree, your IDE) or in the EM UI.
P.S.: I`m +0 for the new proposal, since I am quite happy with the current setup.
What new proposal?
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Eduard
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Apr 11, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
I`m not trilled at all about seeing this in my maven console. We lose any (1) consistency of display and (2) module membership.
(1) is pretty obvious since "Extensions" is at plural (and misleading btw, since it's just a parent module), "Extension API" is at singular, "JAR Extension Handler" is not prefixed by the module and so on. Plus, imagine if the extensions view is sorted by extension name (not currently implemented).
About (2), I consider it to be useful extremely to a user to get an idea from a glance of where that "thing" (that his extension is or depends on) actually is and where it comes from.
If you look at the other 3rd party extenions, you will see "Commons X" (ok, module X comes from Commons -- "Commons BeanUtils"), "Jetty :: X" (ok, module X comes from Jetty -- "Jetty :: IO Utility") and so on. I understand that this can be seen as a maven limitation, but all the other projects are working around it like we also did.
On the other hand, projects like Commons are library projects that have pretty much a flat structure (<Project Name> <Module Name>). Since in XWiki pretty much everything is an extension, the Core Extensions section (EM UI) will be flooded with xwiki modules which are pretty complex in hierarchy and which will confuse the user when they are all displayed on the same level.
I`m -0, towards -1 on the initial proposal.
If we really think that we have a problem on this area, I propose that we introduce a convention for module names that both displays module membership but does not overdo it (a combination of what you propose and what we currently have): <ProjectName> - <Feature/ModuleName> - <SubModulePrettyName>
Example: XWiki Commons - Extension - API XWiki Commons - Extension - Aether Repository XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Model XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Handler XWiki Platform - Annotations - UI XWiki Platform - Blog <-- has no submodule XWiki Rendering - Macro - HTML etc.
The main idea was to make sure that we don`t have any extra levels in <SubModulePrettyName>. IMO, 3 levels is decent from a user's POV and should be enough for devs when structuring their code. If you think about it, that`s pretty much what we already do in the maven project structure.
If the extensions view only displayed XWiki extensions (without 3rd party modules from other projects) then your initial proposal would have been relevant from the user's POV (though still not good for developers).
Maven is at hart a development tool. Yes, we`ve decided to reuse it on the user side as well, but we should not trade a working dev practice for a pretty name that will not even be useful to the user anyway. I fail to envision a practical usecase for the development process where the maven console displays pretty names. It will just be a string blob that will make things harder.
WDYT?
<Answer on naming>
I was the one who defined both the names we use in our pom.xml, the id in our pom.xml and our directory names. I have chosen to use a structure that represents the full name in all places:
* For names: XWiki Commons - Extension - API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api * For directories: xwiki-commons-extension-api/
I've been told that we prefer to use simpler names since the hierarchy already contains the information about the project. This proposal (which is not yet implemented but decided AFAIK) initially came from the fact that long directory names don't work on Windows.
It's the same for names. You don't need to have the full "path" in a pom.xml name to know where it's coming from since it's contained in a pom.xml which has a location.
* For names: Extension API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api (we need the full name for id since we use a fixed groupid ATM. We could drop the first path though if we really and have only "extension-api" since the group id is "org.xwiki.commons" but since this is a technical id I'm not sure it's a good idea and it's not the topic of this mail anyway ;)) * For directories: api/ (more precisely: commons/extension/api/)
Thus using short names is not shocking at all. To be honest I doubt anyone is really using the name when developing. Having a short name wouldn't be an issue.
FTR Maven POM Reference (http://maven.apache.org/pom.html) says the following about the <name> element:
" name: Projects tend to have conversational names, beyond the artifactId. The Sun engineers did not refer to their project as "java-1.5", but rather just called it "Tiger". Here is where to set that value. "
The name is not supposed to be an id. There's artifactid for that.
Again, an example of a top level project. Works well for small top level projects too. But I don`t think it works that well for submodules of bigger projects.
Anyway, my vote is non-binding but I still think it will lose developer value in favour of an insignificant user value.
Actually I think quite the opposite: this change is an insignificant change for the developer but a major advantage for the user. Again, having a user see "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro" is way less nice than him seeing "HTML Macro", don't you agree about that? And again the path can be shown beneath as in: HTML Macro (coming from XWiki Rendering / Macros) <-- displayed in smaller letters and in light gray (for ex) Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Eduard
Thanks -Vincent
</Answer on naming>
I think the main point where I have not been clear is that there has never been any intention of having XWiki modules displayed flat in the Extensions Home Page livetable :)
If that had been the intention then we would definitely have needed a long name to group stuff together. But again it's not the intention at all. Why not? Simply because it doesn't scale and would mean showing lots of stuff to users, flooding them.
So we need to talk about what we're doing now and future…
* Now: We only display modules that are either relevant to the user (ie that they can download) or modules that are used as documentation points. We're not planning to import all modules. The idea is to continue importing only extensions useful to users or top level modules to hold the documentation for that module.
* Future: I think the best representation for the future will be the following: - a treeview when you wish to browser everything. So to take the example of "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro" it would be under the XWiki Rendering/Macros/HTML Macro tree nodes - if you start typing letters in this treeview-livetable widget you'll see all the extensions matching the letters you type, in a flat view (no longer hierarchical) - we will continue to have tags to provide categorizations of extensions: for example "'Macros", "Applications", "LDAP", "HTML", etc - we will also need a view (probably the default - the treeview would be a tab to click to get it) which is a flat view listed by user ratings. So the most used extensions will get better ratings and will show at the top, thus making the more technical or less used extensions got at the bottom of the list. - When displayed in flat view, we could easily display the location of the extension on the next line in smaller characters and in grey color instead of black for example (to make it less visible)
To conclude: it's very important that we have a pretty name as the name. This is the intent of Maven's pom.xml <name> tag. The hierarchy is provided by the <parent> information and can easily be gathered and displayed, whether you are in maven (mvn dependency:tree, your IDE) or in the EM UI.
P.S.: I`m +0 for the new proposal, since I am quite happy with the current setup.
What new proposal?
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Eduard
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Apr 11, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
I`m not trilled at all about seeing this in my maven console. We lose any (1) consistency of display and (2) module membership.
(1) is pretty obvious since "Extensions" is at plural (and misleading btw, since it's just a parent module), "Extension API" is at singular, "JAR Extension Handler" is not prefixed by the module and so on. Plus, imagine if the extensions view is sorted by extension name (not currently implemented).
About (2), I consider it to be useful extremely to a user to get an idea from a glance of where that "thing" (that his extension is or depends on) actually is and where it comes from.
If you look at the other 3rd party extenions, you will see "Commons X" (ok, module X comes from Commons -- "Commons BeanUtils"), "Jetty :: X" (ok, module X comes from Jetty -- "Jetty :: IO Utility") and so on. I understand that this can be seen as a maven limitation, but all the other projects are working around it like we also did.
On the other hand, projects like Commons are library projects that have pretty much a flat structure (<Project Name> <Module Name>). Since in XWiki pretty much everything is an extension, the Core Extensions section (EM UI) will be flooded with xwiki modules which are pretty complex in hierarchy and which will confuse the user when they are all displayed on the same level.
I`m -0, towards -1 on the initial proposal.
If we really think that we have a problem on this area, I propose that we introduce a convention for module names that both displays module membership but does not overdo it (a combination of what you propose and what we currently have): <ProjectName> - <Feature/ModuleName> - <SubModulePrettyName>
Example: XWiki Commons - Extension - API XWiki Commons - Extension - Aether Repository XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Model XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Handler XWiki Platform - Annotations - UI XWiki Platform - Blog <-- has no submodule XWiki Rendering - Macro - HTML etc.
The main idea was to make sure that we don`t have any extra levels in <SubModulePrettyName>. IMO, 3 levels is decent from a user's POV and should be enough for devs when structuring their code. If you think about it, that`s pretty much what we already do in the maven project structure.
If the extensions view only displayed XWiki extensions (without 3rd party modules from other projects) then your initial proposal would have been relevant from the user's POV (though still not good for developers).
Maven is at hart a development tool. Yes, we`ve decided to reuse it on the user side as well, but we should not trade a working dev practice for a pretty name that will not even be useful to the user anyway. I fail to envision a practical usecase for the development process where the maven console displays pretty names. It will just be a string blob that will make things harder.
WDYT?
<Answer on naming>
I was the one who defined both the names we use in our pom.xml, the id in our pom.xml and our directory names. I have chosen to use a structure that represents the full name in all places:
* For names: XWiki Commons - Extension - API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api * For directories: xwiki-commons-extension-api/
I've been told that we prefer to use simpler names since the hierarchy already contains the information about the project. This proposal (which is not yet implemented but decided AFAIK) initially came from the fact that long directory names don't work on Windows.
It's the same for names. You don't need to have the full "path" in a pom.xml name to know where it's coming from since it's contained in a pom.xml which has a location.
* For names: Extension API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api (we need the full name for id since we use a fixed groupid ATM. We could drop the first path though if we really and have only "extension-api" since the group id is "org.xwiki.commons" but since this is a technical id I'm not sure it's a good idea and it's not the topic of this mail anyway ;)) * For directories: api/ (more precisely: commons/extension/api/)
Thus using short names is not shocking at all. To be honest I doubt anyone is really using the name when developing. Having a short name wouldn't be an issue.
FTR Maven POM Reference (http://maven.apache.org/pom.html) says the following about the <name> element:
" name: Projects tend to have conversational names, beyond the artifactId. The Sun engineers did not refer to their project as "java-1.5", but rather just called it "Tiger". Here is where to set that value. "
The name is not supposed to be an id. There's artifactid for that.
Again, an example of a top level project. Works well for small top level projects too. But I don`t think it works that well for submodules of bigger projects.
Anyway, my vote is non-binding but I still think it will lose developer value in favour of an insignificant user value.
Actually I think quite the opposite: this change is an insignificant change for the developer but a major advantage for the user.
As Thomas mentioned to me, it would be nice if Maven could be configured to display the artifactId in the Reactor Summary… However, that's not implemented and while we could provide our own distribution of Maven, I don't think we should do that ;) Another possibility that we discussed with Thomas a few days ago would be to have a format like this: <technical name> - <conversational name> So for example for the HMTL Macro that would be: <name>XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro</name> And in the EM UI we would display only the last part of the name (ie what comes after the last "-"): "HTML Macro". For ex if we take my initial example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s] We would need to change the names to: - XWiki Commons - Extension - Extensions - XWiki Commons - Extension - Extension API - XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Extension Handlers - XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR Extension Handler - XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Extension Repositories - XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether Extension Repository - XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki Extension Repository - XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki - XWiki Extension Repository Model - XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki - XWiki Extension Repository API - XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki - XWiki Extension Repository Handler It will lead to longer names with redundancies but maybe that's ok if it satisfies both use cases? -Vincent
Again, having a user see "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro" is way less nice than him seeing "HTML Macro", don't you agree about that?
And again the path can be shown beneath as in:
HTML Macro (coming from XWiki Rendering / Macros) <-- displayed in smaller letters and in light gray (for ex)
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Eduard
Thanks -Vincent
</Answer on naming>
I think the main point where I have not been clear is that there has never been any intention of having XWiki modules displayed flat in the Extensions Home Page livetable :)
If that had been the intention then we would definitely have needed a long name to group stuff together. But again it's not the intention at all. Why not? Simply because it doesn't scale and would mean showing lots of stuff to users, flooding them.
So we need to talk about what we're doing now and future…
* Now: We only display modules that are either relevant to the user (ie that they can download) or modules that are used as documentation points. We're not planning to import all modules. The idea is to continue importing only extensions useful to users or top level modules to hold the documentation for that module.
* Future: I think the best representation for the future will be the following: - a treeview when you wish to browser everything. So to take the example of "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro" it would be under the XWiki Rendering/Macros/HTML Macro tree nodes - if you start typing letters in this treeview-livetable widget you'll see all the extensions matching the letters you type, in a flat view (no longer hierarchical) - we will continue to have tags to provide categorizations of extensions: for example "'Macros", "Applications", "LDAP", "HTML", etc - we will also need a view (probably the default - the treeview would be a tab to click to get it) which is a flat view listed by user ratings. So the most used extensions will get better ratings and will show at the top, thus making the more technical or less used extensions got at the bottom of the list. - When displayed in flat view, we could easily display the location of the extension on the next line in smaller characters and in grey color instead of black for example (to make it less visible)
To conclude: it's very important that we have a pretty name as the name. This is the intent of Maven's pom.xml <name> tag. The hierarchy is provided by the <parent> information and can easily be gathered and displayed, whether you are in maven (mvn dependency:tree, your IDE) or in the EM UI.
P.S.: I`m +0 for the new proposal, since I am quite happy with the current setup.
What new proposal?
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Eduard
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
Hi, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
On Apr 11, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi devs,
Now that we're starting to use the Extension Manager (EM) we need to be careful about the Description and Names we use in our pom.xml since they're used by the EM to display information to the user. They're also used by the XR application to import extensions located in maven repository into extensions.xwiki.org (EXO).
Right now our names are of the type shown here: https://gist.github.com/2311321
For example: [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Parent POM ............ SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - API ................... SUCCESS [2.066s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - Parent POM .. SUCCESS [0.017s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Handler - JAR ......... SUCCESS [0.133s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Parent POM SUCCESS [0.004s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Aether ... SUCCESS [0.132s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki .... SUCCESS [0.006s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki model SUCCESS [0.188s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki api SUCCESS [0.010s] [INFO] XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler SUCCESS [0.024s]
These names are not nice names for users. Actually they're more IDs than names. And having the users see those in our livetable on EXO isn't nice for example. Nor is it nice if they see them in the EM UI.
I thus propose that we change the way we use names in our pom.xml to use English-readable names, without any "XWiki" prefix.
For example, for the example show above we could have:
Extensions Extension API Extension Handlers JAR Extension Handler Extension Repositories Aether Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository XWiki Extension Repository Model XWiki Extension Repository API XWiki Extension Repository Handler
I`m not trilled at all about seeing this in my maven console. We lose any (1) consistency of display and (2) module membership.
(1) is pretty obvious since "Extensions" is at plural (and misleading btw, since it's just a parent module), "Extension API" is at singular, "JAR Extension Handler" is not prefixed by the module and so on. Plus, imagine if the extensions view is sorted by extension name (not currently implemented).
About (2), I consider it to be useful extremely to a user to get an idea from a glance of where that "thing" (that his extension is or depends on) actually is and where it comes from.
If you look at the other 3rd party extenions, you will see "Commons X" (ok, module X comes from Commons -- "Commons BeanUtils"), "Jetty :: X" (ok, module X comes from Jetty -- "Jetty :: IO Utility") and so on. I understand that this can be seen as a maven limitation, but all the other projects are working around it like we also did.
On the other hand, projects like Commons are library projects that have pretty much a flat structure (<Project Name> <Module Name>). Since in XWiki pretty much everything is an extension, the Core Extensions section (EM UI) will be flooded with xwiki modules which are pretty complex in hierarchy and which will confuse the user when they are all displayed on the same level.
I`m -0, towards -1 on the initial proposal.
If we really think that we have a problem on this area, I propose that we introduce a convention for module names that both displays module membership but does not overdo it (a combination of what you propose and what we currently have): <ProjectName> - <Feature/ModuleName> - <SubModulePrettyName>
Example: XWiki Commons - Extension - API XWiki Commons - Extension - Aether Repository XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Model XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Handler XWiki Platform - Annotations - UI XWiki Platform - Blog <-- has no submodule XWiki Rendering - Macro - HTML etc.
The main idea was to make sure that we don`t have any extra levels in <SubModulePrettyName>. IMO, 3 levels is decent from a user's POV and should be enough for devs when structuring their code. If you think about it, that`s pretty much what we already do in the maven project structure.
If the extensions view only displayed XWiki extensions (without 3rd party modules from other projects) then your initial proposal would have been relevant from the user's POV (though still not good for developers).
Maven is at hart a development tool. Yes, we`ve decided to reuse it on the user side as well, but we should not trade a working dev practice for a pretty name that will not even be useful to the user anyway. I fail to envision a practical usecase for the development process where the maven console displays pretty names. It will just be a string blob that will make things harder.
WDYT?
<Answer on naming>
I was the one who defined both the names we use in our pom.xml, the id in our pom.xml and our directory names. I have chosen to use a structure that represents the full name in all places:
* For names: XWiki Commons - Extension - API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api * For directories: xwiki-commons-extension-api/
I've been told that we prefer to use simpler names since the hierarchy already contains the information about the project. This proposal (which is not yet implemented but decided AFAIK) initially came from the fact that long directory names don't work on Windows.
It's the same for names. You don't need to have the full "path" in a pom.xml name to know where it's coming from since it's contained in a pom.xml which has a location.
* For names: Extension API * For ids: xwiki-commons-extension-api (we need the full name for id since we use a fixed groupid ATM. We could drop the first path though if we really and have only "extension-api" since the group id is "org.xwiki.commons" but since this is a technical id I'm not sure it's a good idea and it's not the topic of this mail anyway ;)) * For directories: api/ (more precisely: commons/extension/api/)
Thus using short names is not shocking at all. To be honest I doubt anyone is really using the name when developing.
I was talking about the console output at built time. The build summary. How would that look like with the new pretty names?
Having a short name wouldn't be an issue.
</Answer on naming>
I think the main point where I have not been clear is that there has never been any intention of having XWiki modules displayed flat in the Extensions Home Page livetable :)
If that had been the intention then we would definitely have needed a long name to group stuff together. But again it's not the intention at all. Why not? Simply because it doesn't scale and would mean showing lots of stuff to users, flooding them.
So we need to talk about what we're doing now and future…
* Now: We only display modules that are either relevant to the user (ie that they can download) or modules that are used as documentation points. We're not planning to import all modules. The idea is to continue importing only extensions useful to users or top level modules to hold the documentation for that module.
It seems that currently we don`t support browsing a maven repository from the EM UI. This means that the only place where we are currently "bothered" by an artefact's name is the "Core Exttensions" and "Intalled Extensions" sections and maybe the dependencies section of another extension. The main browsing and searching view is done only on XWiki Repository extensions and here we only expose top level stuff as you said. However, I don`t know if this will change in the future.
* Future: I think the best representation for the future will be the following: - a treeview when you wish to browser everything. So to take the example of "XWiki Rendering - Macros - HTML Macro" it would be under the XWiki Rendering/Macros/HTML Macro tree nodes - if you start typing letters in this treeview-livetable widget you'll see all the extensions matching the letters you type, in a flat view (no longer hierarchical) - we will continue to have tags to provide categorizations of extensions: for example "'Macros", "Applications", "LDAP", "HTML", etc - we will also need a view (probably the default - the treeview would be a tab to click to get it) which is a flat view listed by user ratings. So the most used extensions will get better ratings and will show at the top, thus making the more technical or less used extensions got at the bottom of the list. - When displayed in flat view, we could easily display the location of the extension on the next line in smaller characters and in grey color instead of black for example (to make it less visible)
I did not know about the treeview, but, from your description, it seems that a great part of the functionality (search + sorting by rating which should be the default IMO) ends up using a flat view.
To conclude: it's very important that we have a pretty name as the name. This is the intent of Maven's pom.xml <name> tag. The hierarchy is provided by the <parent> information and can easily be gathered and displayed, whether you are in maven (mvn dependency:tree, your IDE) or in the EM UI.
P.S.: I`m +0 for the new proposal, since I am quite happy with the current setup.
What new proposal?
Always use 3 elements: "XWiki Commons - Extension - XWiki Repository Handler" instead of "XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - XWiki handler". Thanks, Eduard
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Eduard
The alternative is to introduce a custom property in our pom.xm that would be used by the EM and XR but that's not a good solution because it means even more maintenance work.
While not using technical id as names in our pom.xml is not as nice when displayed in the Maven Reactor I feel it's still the best solution we have.
Here's my +1
Thanks -Vincent
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
participants (5)
-
Denis Gervalle -
Eduard Moraru -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol