On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ?
This comparison does not make any sense. It's like saying a browser should not know its own version to be sure it's not going to indicate it. If you had read my mail more carefully you would have seen one example I gave: "among other things it allows to check for available updates". This is one of the perfectly valid use case for wanting to know what is the distribution and there is others I'm sure. For example right now by default you get the distribution name and version in the footer and this is done by putting it in the name in XWikiPreferences page at build time which could hardly be worst. It will also make the version.properties useless and all the build configuration to generate it since you will get a generic API to get the version of the distribution and also any extension like you can do already. > > 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 Linux is not a good example for what you are trying to say. Many distributions like Ubuntu to cite just one have the concept of distribution as a whole with version and distribution upgrade. > 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. Please lets do things one step at a time. Also don't assume that the future is settled, I still don't agree with you that it is a good thing to completely loose the concept of XWiki distribution that you can upgrade etc. It's not like I was proposing a very complex thing that is going to make XWiki stuck for any evolution of the architecture, it's just adding one perfectly valid information to the MANIFEST.MF file. This is not something built at the hearth of extension manager that you are running in a WAR, it's just one more information when this information is available. It will not change anything at all in the way to deal with extensions in general. > > 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 ? Where did I said exactly that I want to replace the list of core extensions by the single WAR entry ? The goal is not to make all extensions put the war as dependency instead of the proper core extensions but to provide an information that should be provided simply because it exists and can be useful. The fear that a bad developer will put XWiki Enterprise 4.0 as dependency instead of listing the actual modules his extension needs should not prevent us to provide this information for other needs than dependency resolution. > > > >> >> +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 -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
