On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hi devs, > > Since I got some veto on http://markmail.org/message/feavtmfokcsaalpo > lets cut all that in small peaces. > > The today's episode is about finding what is the war we are running it > at runtime to list it in the core extensions (among other things it > allows to check for available updates). > > Like the JAR packages, a WAR contains pom.xml file, problem is that > this pom.xml file is not in a "stable" location > (META-INF/<groupId>/<artifactId>/pom.xml) and I can't find any generic > way to scan a WAR like Reflection allows to scan jars files from the > classpath. > > So as a last resort solution I propose to include the extension > identifier in the METAINF.MF at build time. This will give me the > entry point I need to find the pom.xml and gather more detailed > informations about the war to put it as core extension. > > WDYT ? > Currently, I do not really see what it changes compare to our previous thread. Let me try to better explains myself with a similar example from another domain. In Javascript, you sometime needs to detect in which browser you are running in, and we all know that this is bad. The good way to do is to detect available features, and not the browser as a whole. I see the war here as the browser, and the deployed jars/xars as the available features. Providing a way to know which was the initial WAR deployed, is therefore encouraging the bad way to know what features are available. This is even worse than in the browser detection, since XWiki is really modular, and you can install a XEM war, but setup XE over it. So, I really do not understand currently why you really want to better know on which WAR you are running ? Moving further in the future, we may expect to have a single minimal WAR, and a bunch of extentions choosen freely by the user, using something similar to a linux setup, using recommended groups of extensions to build a XWiki well suited for this or that purpose. And therefore, the WAR will completely loose its meaning. IMO, currently, a WAR is simply the minimal core, and a pre-selected set of extensions, just to ease an initial setup. After being deployed, it loose its meaning completely, and could fully changed. I know that these "core" extensions are installed for ever, but this more a limitation than a feature, except for the minimal needed set. Could you explain why you really want to give that initial set of extensions some properties as a whole ? or am I missing something fundamental ? > > +1 > -- > Thomas Mortagne > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
