On 10/06/2010 04:49 PM, [Ricardo Rodriguez] eBioTIC. wrote: > Thanks. > > Alex Busenius wrote: >> Yes. > > And being this way, we'll have a different xar for each application for > each release of XE even though it has not changed. Don't be possible to > implement some kind of "compatibility" table within XE? I don't know if > I'm asking for something difficult or very difficult. I'm sure it is not > easy: in that case, it would be already done! > > So, be charible with this proposal: > > 1. Each application will have its own rhythm of release; at least major > release. I don't understand why an application that is not evolving as > quickly like the core, XE, will have to synchronize its release number > with it. Or perhaps it is a so well designed application that don't need > the same number of releases. Major release could represent changes in > the technology that makes incompatible > > 2. XE will be in charge of detecting attempts of installing incompatible > software. And each application will be in charge of cross-test its > compatibility with other software already installed in XE.
This is a very interesting idea and if done correctly could be a big benefit. In Firefox, it is largely left up to the extension developers to guess how long their extension will remain compatible. To fix this problem we would have to introduce a mechanism for each API function to promise that the function will remain until a given version number. If every API function were annotated with such numbers, then for a developer to determine how long their application is expected to be compatible would be a trivial task which could even be handled by static code analysis. Definitely something to think about as the extension manager is moving nearer to completion. > > 3. xwiki.org will maintain that compatibility matrix. And testers must > be identify within the XWiki community to make all this cross-testing > possible. Perhaps not with all the released XE versions and all > application releases, but perhaps the last two of three of them. I > think, nothing new, I know, that the update process is too hard for > "regular users" or even "regular administrators" and is preventing many > users to update its XWiki software more frequently. This is where things get difficult, IMO we need to concentrate on testing of the code which is released in XEnterprise. > > I use software from some other Open Source "modular" projects. Perhaps R > (from The R Foundation for Statistical Computing), Thunderbird, Firefox > and R are the best examples I know of a core and a constellations of > modules. The core is in charge of rejecting, or at least warning about, > the installation of incompatible software. I don't know the mechanism > behind the scene, but if we all depict a great future for XWiki where > dozens (at least!) of applications will be developed in its framework, I > think that we need such a kind of "automatic" mechanism that, at least, > prevents the load of incompatible applications or plugins in a core XE > installation. > > Thanks! > > Ricardo > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
