+1 for XIP
:)
Best,
Krzysiek
2017-05-02 17:32 GMT+02:00 Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com>om>:
XIP = XWiki Importable Package :)
sounds like ZIP, so I think is funny :)
Thanks,
Caty
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>
> > > On 2 May 2017, at 16:36, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 2,
2017 at 4:28 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >>> On 2 May 2017, at 16:05, Thomas Mortagne <
thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi devs,
> >>>
> >>> I'm currently working on a new package format to package a bunch
of
> >>> extensions into a single file.
> >>>
> >>> The first use case is to make offline install easier. We can't
count
on
>> all
>>> in one XAR anymore (plus all in one XAR prduces very crappy
extensions)
> so
>> I was thinking about providing a generic package containing all the
>> extensions you need in it. It will simply be a zip containing
extensions
>> in
>>> the same format than Extension Manager local repository so that you
can
> >>> unzip it it there (or later use some UI to "import" it).
> >>>
> >>> So now I need a name for this new package. Since extension
descriptor
> >> file
> >>> extension is "xed" (for "XWiki Extension
Descriptor") I was
thinking
>>
about
>>> naming it XEP (for "XWiki Extension Package"). Any better idea ?
>>>
>>> For now my plan is to provide the following:
>>> * a new Maven handler for <packaging>xep</packaging>
>>> * a new Maven mojo "xep" in the existing extension Maven plugin
>>> * start using it with the new platform flavor which is supposed to
>> replace
>>> XE so that people can have something to use for offline installs
>>>
>>> WDYT ?
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> Regarding the naming, assuming we need a file extension other than
ZIP,
> >> "XWiki Extension Package” seems like a package for a single XWiki
> Extension.
> >>
> >> Some ideas. Why not something in the name that suggest it’s a
> repository.
> >>
> >> For example: XWiki Extension Repository Archive or XWiki Repository
> >> Archive for short, which, using a 3LA, would translate into XRA.
> >>
> >> XAR = XWiki Archive = a single extension
> >> XRA = XWiki Repository Archive = a repository of extensions =
several
> >> extensions
> >>
> >> We could also have XWiki Extension Repository, i.e. “XER”, which
would
> > >> also be one letter change from XAR:
> > >>
> > >> XAR = XWiki Archive = a single extension
> > >> XER = XWiki Extension Repository = a repository of extensions =
> several
> > >> extensions
> > >>
> >
> > > I'm fine with
XER.
> >
> >
> > >> Now since the users will need to unzip this
binary and they won’t
> import
> > >> it (as they do for XAR), it would be better for it to be ZIP as
> > otherwise
> > >> it’ll harder to unzip (no double-clicking on it for ex).
> > >>
> >
> > > As I said I think
we'll have a UI for it at some point. I just don't
> > think
> > > I will have time to work on that in the new platform flavor scope (or
> > maybe
> > > just a quick tool in
> > >
http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Extension+Tweak
).
>
> > I know you said that but
IMO the primary usage is for users to unzip
into
> a given directory and the easiest is to
provide a ZIP to them. Even if
we
> > have an import UI, we can still offer the ZIP to that UI…
>
> > So at this point, I don’t
fully understand why we’d need something
other
> > than zip.
>
> > Sounds like we might be
overcomplicated things. On the maven side, we
> > could use the maven assembly plugin to generate the zip.
>
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Just using assembly plugin is not enough because you also
need get the
> dependencies, put them in the right sub-folders, generate the extensions
> descriptors and exclude dependencies that are already part of the WAR (in
> flavor package use case) so you need a special mojo to take care of all
> that. also it's still a specific package with a specific format that
happen
> to be based on zip, I find it more clear to give it a specific file
> extension (it "certify" that you won't get surprise when unzipping
it).
> Double clicking on the file is really
not a major use case for me since
> this is going to be used mostly on servers. When you do "unzip myfile"
the
> file extension does not really matter much.
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
>
> > > Thanks
> > >> -Vincent
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Thomas Mortagne
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Mortagne
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne