On Aug 28, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Mortagne > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 28, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 28, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to modify a bit the Maven XAR plugin to add in the >>>>>> package.xml some extension related informations like the extension id >>>>>> and version at the very least. >>>>> >>>>> Why not package the pom.xml instead in META-INF/maven/* as it's done by >>>>> the Maven JAR plugin? >>>> >>>> Because it's not supposed as part of XAR format by existing XAR >>>> parser, you will get an error because it will fail to parse it as a >>>> document. The proposal here is to use something that already exists, >>>> does not break anything and is very easy to do. >>> >>> I personally much prefer to add META-INF support over changing the >>> package.xml format because it's much better aligned with all other formats >>> like JAR, EAR, WAR, etc and with the way we handle JAR extensions. >> >> I think you don't understand what I mean here. The issue is not that >> it's complex to support it, adding support in 4.2 for META-INF will >> not change the fact that you will get an error in older version with >> your XAR. >> >>> >>> It doesn't look complex to add either, it's a matter of excluding META-INF >>> files from the parser and to use the Maven Archiver (see >>> http://maven.apache.org/shared/maven-archiver/). > > Making the XAR format depends on Maven is not exactly something > generic or even very nice. Core extension scanner is looking at the > pom located in jar file among other things in order to find as much as > it can but lets not forget that this is a hack and nothing else. Whatever the solution we need consistency IMO. If your proposal is to create an extension.xml file located in META-INF/xwiki and that we would put in all our extension types then I'm all for it too. I don't like mixing extension information with packaging information. For me package.xml shouldn't contain extension information. Thanks -Vincent >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>>>> It would be more generic and similar to how JARs are handled. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>>> The idea is to be able to know what a XAR is exactly like we have the >>>>>> pom.xml packaged with the jar file for example. >>>>>> >>>>>> Among other things it will cover the following use cases: >>>>>> * when someone import a XAR with the standard UI, automatically >>>>>> register it in the extension index if it happen to be an extension >>>>>> (i.e. if we find extension informations in its package.xml) >>>>>> * wiki manager and workspaces can properly register actual extension >>>>>> when creating their default template from a XAR the first time (this >>>>>> is for example required to be able to upgrade a farm with EM where >>>>>> pretty much all the wiki as been created from this default template) >>>>>> >>>>>> In both cases the idea is to support as much current behaviours as we >>>>>> can and still be able to use the full power of Extension Manager. >>>>>> >>>>>> There should not be any backward compatibility issue here since it >>>>>> does not really change anything in the XAR structure. >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is my +1 _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
