Short answer is +1, provide a solution fast, and stay backward compatible. Longer answer: I do not see how this could really cause an issue when we need to completely review xar packaging. Maybe we would even change them fully, and this would be no more a xar, but this could not be discussed during 4.2, and it could maybe even wait 5.x . In the meantime, we need a solution, and Thomas propose a smooth and cheap solution, even if I agree with Vincent that it is not so nice... but the xar format is not so nice, and we all agree that it need to be refactored.
About the more general debate: How the Maven Repository use pom information is perfect IMO and should not be changed, since this is the maven way. Each kind of a repository may have their own way to provide information about their packages. All Vincent said is valid to be discussed in that context, and may be different supported way to convey the needed informations, these are not necessarily mutually exclusives. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
