16 Oct
2008
16 Oct
'08
7:04 p.m.
Hi guys, regarding the bug from
http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPXARPLUGIN, I would like to know your
oppinion regarding this issue:
If there is already a package.xml document, but it's invalid, the plugin
should:
a) Display a warning, ignore the existing package.xml and generate a new one.
b) Throw an error, thus causing the build to fail
Personally, I'm for a), since it's not a critical issue.
Thomas M. says that if there is a package.xml it's because someone wants
that package.xml to be taken into account, so if for b)
Tnx.
17 Oct
17 Oct
2:42 a.m.
dan.miron(a)xwiki.com wrote:
Hi guys, regarding the bug from
http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPXARPLUGIN, I would like to know your
oppinion regarding this issue:
If there is already a package.xml document, but it's invalid, the plugin
should:
a) Display a warning, ignore the existing package.xml and generate a new one.
b) Throw an error, thus causing the build to fail
Personally, I'm for a), since it's not a critical issue.
Thomas M. says that if there is a package.xml it's because someone wants
that package.xml to be taken into account, so if for b)
Since there are two opinions, why not make a (boolean) setting? The
default should be to fail, but give the user the choice to force the build.
Personally, I think that B is the right choice. An invalid xml file is a
problem in the sources, and the developer should be aware of it. A mere
warning could be lost in a long log, or in case of automated builds it
will rarely be looked at.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
11:20 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:42 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
dan.miron(a)xwiki.com wrote:
+0 for configurable if it's "faill=true" by default.
Hi guys, regarding the bug from
http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPXARPLUGIN, I would like to know your
oppinion regarding this issue:
If there is already a package.xml document, but it's invalid, the plugin
should:
a) Display a warning, ignore the existing package.xml and generate a new one.
b) Throw an error, thus causing the build to fail
Personally, I'm for a), since it's not a critical issue.
Thomas M. says that if there is a package.xml it's because someone wants
that package.xml to be taken into account, so if for b)
Since there are two opinions, why not make a (boolean) setting? The
default should be to fail, but give the user the choice to force the build.
Personally, I think that B is the right choice. An invalid xml file is a
problem in the sources, and the developer should be aware of it. A mere
warning could be lost in a long log, or in case of automated builds it
will rarely be looked at.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
11:22 a.m.
Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:42 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
+0 as well, it
does not cost much
dan.miron(a)xwiki.com wrote:
+0 for configurable if it's "faill=true" by default. Hi guys, regarding the bug from
http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPXARPLUGIN, I would like to know your
oppinion regarding this issue:
If there is already a package.xml document, but it's invalid, the plugin
should:
a) Display a warning, ignore the existing package.xml and generate a new one.
b) Throw an error, thus causing the build to fail
Personally, I'm for a), since it's not a critical issue.
Thomas M. says that if there is a package.xml it's because someone wants
that package.xml to be taken into account, so if for b)
Since there are two
opinions, why not make a (boolean) setting? The
default should be to fail, but give the user the choice to force the build.
Personally, I think that B is the right choice. An invalid xml file is a
problem in the sources, and the developer should be aware of it. A mere
warning could be lost in a long log, or in case of automated builds it
will rarely be looked at. --
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
11:40 a.m.
On Oct 17, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Thomas Mortagne wrote:
I don't agree. +1 for b), -1 for having both.
Complexity is bad especially when it's not needed.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:42 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
+0 as well, it
does not cost much dan.miron(a)xwiki.com wrote:
+0 for configurable if it's "faill=true" by default. Hi guys, regarding the bug from
http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPXARPLUGIN, I would like to
know your
oppinion regarding this issue:
If there is already a package.xml document, but it's invalid, the
plugin
should:
a) Display a warning, ignore the existing package.xml and
generate a new one.
b) Throw an error, thus causing the build to fail
Personally, I'm for a), since it's not a critical issue.
Thomas M. says that if there is a package.xml it's because
someone wants
that package.xml to be taken into account, so if for b)
Since there are two
opinions, why not make a (boolean) setting? The
default should be to fail, but give the user the choice to force
the build.
Personally, I think that B is the right choice. An invalid xml
file is a
problem in the sources, and the developer should be aware of it. A
mere
warning could be lost in a long log, or in case of automated
builds it
will rarely be looked at.
10:25 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Default behavior when building wiki with invalid package.xml (XPXARPLUGIN-1)
I'm in favor of b), giving the developer the responsibility of having a
valid package.xml if he is willing to use one.
Jerome.
dan.miron(a)xwiki.com wrote:
Hi guys, regarding the bug from
http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPXARPLUGIN, I would like to know your
oppinion regarding this issue:
If there is already a package.xml document, but it's invalid, the plugin
should:
a) Display a warning, ignore the existing package.xml and generate a new one.
b) Throw an error, thus causing the build to fail
Personally, I'm for a), since it's not a critical issue.
Thomas M. says that if there is a package.xml it's because someone wants
that package.xml to be taken into account, so if for b)
Tnx.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
10:28 a.m.
+1 for b)
dan.miron(a)xwiki.com wrote:
Hi guys, regarding the bug from
http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPXARPLUGIN, I would like to know your
oppinion regarding this issue:
If there is already a package.xml document, but it's invalid, the plugin
should:
a) Display a warning, ignore the existing package.xml and generate a new one.
b) Throw an error, thus causing the build to fail
Personally, I'm for a), since it's not a critical issue.
Thomas M. says that if there is a package.xml it's because someone wants
that package.xml to be taken into account, so if for b)
Tnx.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
5866
days inactive
5867
days old
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
dan.miron＠xwiki.com -
Jerome Velociter -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol