On 10/14/2011 01:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > 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.
I looked both at commons-core and platform-core and, while the configuration in there isn't needed for tools, I think that it's not going to break tools either. > 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. Indeed, I forgot about this. I prefer 3a as well, and I'm close to -1 for 3b. >> >>> 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 -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
