Hi Sergiu, On Oct 14, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 08:56, Florin Ciubotaru <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Reviving the thread with a late -1. > > Reviving this thread again after the release of 3.2. > > I'd like to get this problem fixed, so here's a proposal: > > https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/tree/master/xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-cache/xwiki-platform-cache-api > > becomes > > https://github.com/xwiki/platform/tree/master/core/cache/api > > The current strategy is to get longer and longer directory names, by > copying the parent directory name and adding a suffix to it. While > this keeps the current artifact ID in sync with the directory it sits > in, it creates redundancy and is much too verbose. Plus, it creates > the checkout problem on Windows. +0 (I'm fine with long directory name but I understand why some people wouldn't like them - They display very nicely in my IDE BTW). Note that this is a huge reorganization you're proposing and thus if we agree about it we'll need to properly plan it in a given XE release (i.e. put it in the roadmap), and ensure we'll have the time to do it + do the other stuff we'll have decided. > The proposed strategy is to remove all redundancy and instead have the > artifact ID in sync with the directory structure starting from the git > repository root. > > Still, there are a few things I'd like some feedback on: > > 1. Do we keep "xwiki" in the repository name or not? > a) The "xwiki" part of the artifact ID is found in the organization > name, so the repository name skips it: "platform", "rendering"... > b) The organization name isn't going to be found on the user's > filesystem, so it makes sense to keep it in the repository name: > "xwiki-platform", "xwiki-rendering"… >From the two I prefer 1b but I'm fine with both. > 2. What do we do with the "core+tools" split of some of the repositories? > a) Keep it, which means that we'll not have 100% sync with some of the > artifact ID, since "core" is not part of the artifactIds. > b) Keep it and change the artifactIds of the core modules to include it > c) Move the "core" modules to the root of the repository, keeping > "tools" grouped under the tools subdirectory There's a problem. We have POM configurations that should only be applied to core modules and not to tools. I'm not sure how to best solve this. Need to think a bit more about it. > Personally, I'm: > * +1 for 1a, +0 for 1b; the argument for b is not really valid, since > users can change the directory name where their clone is going to be > created, and most developers usually create a top level directory to > hold the XWiki repositories by themselves anyway > * -0 for 2a, since I'd like to have a clear and simple rule for > mapping artifact IDs to directories, without having to add an > "...except if the directory is named core..." exception to this rule; > -0 for 2b, since I prefer not to change artifact IDs so often between > versions; +1 for 2c, since it's going to bring the most important > modules closer to the root. > > So, the one clear and simple rule to follow for naming directories and > artifacts is: > > Assuming you checked out the XWiki repositories in a common folder > called "xwiki", then the artifactId of any pom.xml file is the same as > the path from the top "xwiki" directory to the current directory, with > dashes between the names. 3) You forgot that we need to also decide on plural vs singular. For example right now the directory for tools is *-tools" but the artifact id for tool modules is *-tool-* The Same applies in lots of other places too (like macros, syntaxes, etc). So to follow your rule we'll need to decide if we want to: a) rename the aggregator module's artifact id to singular b) rename all submodule artifact id to use the plural form I prefer 3a. > >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +0, using artifactid is longer, but a clear rule. And you have >>> auto-completion and IDE, so why fear longer name ? >>> >> There an issue long paths on Windows as mentioned here: >> http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Unable-to-clone-platform-repository-on-windows-machines-redundant-directory-naming-td6363136.html >> >> Florin Ciubotaru >> >>> >>> Denis >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 15:49, Marius Dumitru Florea < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Same as Sergiu, I prefer shorter names but artifactId is not that bad. So >>>> 0. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Marius >>>> >>>> On 04/05/2011 02:19 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 04/05/2011 11:03 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The proposal is to use artifactid as directory names. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that this is what I did for commons and rendering when I did the >>>> move to top level project. You can check how it looks like here: >>>>>>> http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/commons/ >>>>>>> http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/rendering/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest we keep one strategy only for consistency. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some discussion here too: >>>>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.sonatype.com/people/2011/01/maven-tip-project-directories-and-artifact-ids/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know there are some cons (see my comment in the link above) but >>>> overall I find it simple to implement and with autocompletion not such a >>> big >>>> issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> 0. I'd prefer shorter names, but I don't have a strong preference for >>>>>> it. Either way works. >>>>> >>>>> Same as Sergiu, I would prefer shorter names ; but no strong feelings >>>> either. >>>>> 0 >>>>> >>>>> Jerome >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you don't like this then please propose an alternative solution >>> and >>>> remember that we'll need to refactor commons and rendering in this case >>> too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
