On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I`m with Denis on this one. > > Besides knowing from which module the sub-module is, you also lose > top-module information. Couple that with the fact that we have some modules > with almost identical names in both platform and commons (due to partial > moving to commons of some sub-modules), it will become a bit tricky to know > which one is actually mentioned. Displaying the extension ID in the EM > would help a bit on this aspect. > > Another inconvenient of pretty names is that they can get messy fast. In > lack of a convention, we risk confusing users more than helping them. > Besides that, we will be very tempted to name modules by a similar scheme > that we have today, due to the hierarchical nature and the "part-whole" > relationship between modules. I am not sure on what improvement we will > have with this approach (option 2), instead of maybe dropping the "-" > characters from the pretty name. > > Extension search also should work on, since users search for keywords and > that's generally what we use right now in the module names. Adding a lot of > stopwords around those keywords (like Extension Repository *for* Maven) is > not much of an UX improvement IMO. > > Do we, by any chance have some reports/complaints from user about the > current way of naming extensions? I find the we currently have a decent > balance between technical and pretty names. We generally have 3 to 4 > components in the module's name and, rarely, in some modules that are not > really exposed to the user (corner cases), we might exceed that to 5-6. What Thomas and I are proposing is exactly that: to keep the current names on e.x.o. Now what you propose when you vote +1 for 1) is the opposite, i.e. for example instead of having "Blog Application" you'd have "XWiki Platform - Blog - UI" (on http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Blog+Application). I don't see how worse it could be… :) The reason we don't have any complaints is exactly because those names are good! Thanks -Vincent > So my vote is: > +1 for 1) > +0 for 2) > -1 for 3) > > Thanks, > Eduard > > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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
