On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 28, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 28, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's exactly the same thing. The package.xml file is the XAR way to >>>>>> provide informations about the file and is generated from the pom.xml. >>>>>> It already provide the a subset of extension informations (name, >>>>>> version, license, etc.) so the proposal here is about adding more >>>>>> things. >>>>> >>>>> For me the package.xml should probably even be removed or at least a lot >>>>> of information should be removed. There's no point in listing the files >>>>> explicitly for example. Same for whether it's a backup pack or not. >>>>> >>>>> And a lot of the information currently in package.xml should be moved to >>>>> META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml such as author, license, version, name, >>>>> description. >>>>> >>>>> So I'm definitely with you about creating a XWiki-specific descriptor >>>>> (not tied to maven) located in META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml for all our >>>>> extensions, but beefing up package.xml goes in the wrong direction IMO. >>>>> >>>>> At the very least I'd like that we agree about where we'd like to go >>>>> (I've made a proposal with META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml) and then discuss >>>>> how to get there and what it takes. If it means going through >>>>> intermediary steps, then fine, the important part for me being to agree >>>>> on where we want to go. >>>> >>>> Maybe but that's a different subject and IMO it sounds like creating a >>>> new packaging format for wiki pages. >>> >>> There are 2 topics: >>> * Create a generic format for all xwiki extensions (the >>> META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml), nothing to do with wiki pages >>> * Modify the existing XAR format descriptor (package.xml) to remove stuff >>> that are 1) not needed (like the list of files and 2) can be found in the >>> extension information (i.e. in META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml) >>> >>> So far you/we have decided that the xwiki extension format will be the >>> pom.xml format which is why we are using it in our JAR file to discover >>> extensions. >> >> We never decided such thing. > > It's a de facto choice since this is currently how our artifacts provide > extension information for the Extension Manager (we even have custom pom > properties for that).
No it's not, it's how Maven Repository provide extension information for Extension Manager. When you install an extension from XWiki Repository there is not a single line of code reading at any pom.xml. > >> Again the core extension scanner try to >> find all it can from the jar located and among other things it check >> if there is pom.xml because that's a format in which it can find >> extension informations usually but there is others and for some JAR it >> does not exists. The only other thing that look at pom.xml is the >> Maven Reposirory handler (and I actually plan to move the core scanner >> part which looks at pom descriptor to the Maven handler when I get >> some time). Extension Manager in general does not officially depends >> in any way on Maven, you don't have to build you extension with Maven >> for it to be supported by Extension Manager and I hope you will never >> have to. >> >> So if you want to start designing a new packaging format no problem >> and it's actually listed in >> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/ExtensionManageXWikiPackage >> but it's a totally different subject and in no way a priority. The way >> standard to provide informations about the package in a XAR is >> package.xml so I'm just proposing to add one more informations. You >> are talking about packing format that does not have anything to do >> with XAR, the fact that you change everything and still call it XAR is >> only you point of view. > > I know you're on a tight schedule for 4.2 and I don't want to block you so > I'm going to vote +0 for now but I'm still of the view that it isn't the > right place for the future. Let's hope it doesn't cause us more harm (but it > should be ok because removing one or several properties in the future is > going to be roughly the same cost). > > Thanks > -Vincent > >>> Based on that it's not logical to invent a new way to add extension >>> information even if the existing package.xml contains already some >>> information that happens (by pure coincidence) to be the same as the one >>> needed by the extension manager (for ex the version in package.xml could be >>> a completely different version than the extension version). >>> >>> Based on this the logic is to add the pom.xml file to the XAR. >>> >>> Now you said that you didn't think using the Maven format is good. Fine. >>> This is a change from what we had decided so far and I'm ready to accept >>> that we may want to dissociate from Maven; hence my proposal about the >>> META-INF/xwiki/extension.xml file. >>> >>> So we have 2 choices for me: >>> * continue with the current rule of using pom.xml files as containing >>> extension information >>> * decide to bite the bullet and invent a new format for holding extension >>> information >>> >>> Those are the 2 *good* choices for me. Ofc we need to handle backward >>> compat as best as we can but that's doable. >>> >>> You'd like to do the 3rd choice which IMO is a quick and dirty solution. >>> I'd accept it but only as a quick hack for 4.2 and that we would need to >>> correct ASAP. >>> >>>> I need something for 4.2 and >>>> adding the id in package.xml along with the other existing extension >>>> informations is quick, easy, fully retro compatible and does not >>>> really introduce anything new. >>> >>> Sure but it does introduce something new: the new information you add to >>> package.xml. And this is exactly like a public API; once it's there we have >>> to support it and be retro compatible. So we have to be careful because >>> it's a pain to change after. >>> >>> I'm curious to know what others think about this. >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > _______________________________________________ > 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
