On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi devs, > > > > In order to automate the update of extensions imported from > > https://github.com/xwiki/ we need to have nothing to modify when an > > import is done. > > > > The last remaining thing is the name on which there is a debate is the > > name. Right now the name we have in our maven project looks like > > "XWiki Commons - Extension - Repository - Maven" so that's what we get > > when importing this project or when viewing it in EM UI. > > > > Some of us want to keep this idish name for Maven build but don't like > > it when displaying extension. I recently introduced a way to overwrite > > some extension related informations like the name based on properties. > > > > So here are the choices we have: > > > > 1) Do nothing which mean display "XWiki Commons - Extension - > > Repository - Maven" in EM UI and extensions.xwiki.org > > 2) Change our naming in Maven <name> property for it to be more a name > > than an id that would looks good in EM UI > > 3) Keep the same naming for Maven <name> and overwrite it everywhere > > using <xwiki.extension.name> property > > > > So, WDYT ? > > > > The one that makes the more sense to me is 2) so my +1 goes to this > > one. Frankly I don't care too much having the current id based display > > of the summary of built modules in Maven build and I personally won't > > have any issue to know what name correspond to what project (but > > that's because I know them well, I can understand new dev could be a > > bit more lost). > > > > Then: > > * +0 for 3) to +0 (I don't like too much having this special case > > everywhere in our Maven pom.xml) > > * -0 for 1) (I agree that it does not looks very nice as a display name). > > Exactly the same as Thomas for me. I'd really like if we could find a > solution that works for 2). Even in Maven it's supposed to be a name, i.e. > something readable, not an id… Now even with 2) we would still need a > naming rule and have some concise name. > If you want name to be more pretty and concise, we should also discuss how the information lost in changing names are still displayed in EM, since these information are still useful IMO. I take the occasion to also mention that EM currently do not seems to sort the list by any means, and this make the list not really browsable. And if you think about sorting, the current names are not badly suited. There is IMO a 4) option, just to be complete since I am not sure I would be in favor, which is to manage the issue in the UI, parsing our names and displaying them differently, to be just more pretty. I would prefer to keep only one name, using the maven one, so 2) seems the best option after doing nothing, but I am not really happy to loose the information we have in names currently. So I agree with Vincent, the naming convention is closely linked to this vote. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > _______________________________________________ > 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
