Well this is a very interesting topic of discusssion and me and the XWiki SAS Research team would like to do whatever we can to help evolve XWiki forward (but don't let us get in the way!)
On 04/11/16 14:34, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi devs, We’ve been developing XWiki over 10 years now. I’d like to start a discussion about major architecture changes we may want to do in the coming 5 years. With this discussion I have 2 goals in mind: * Prepare XWiki for the challenges ahead (prevent it from being obsolete, have an architecture that can adapt to changes, etc) * Make XWiki an interesting project to develop on for its developers (interesting technologies, interesting intellectual challenges, etc)
The futurist in me sees an ongoing struggle between hot new technologies and good working systems as a reflection of the struggle between engineers who love to play and learn vs. managers who have to balance budget. Of course we want something of a middle road where we pluck out the good *ideas* from modern technologies without being swept up in every fad.
Let me start with a few large architecture items I can think about: * Polyglotism for the front end. This is the ability to code the XWiki UI in any language (PHP, Node.js, javascript, native applications, etc). Right now XWiki UIs are coded mostly using Velocity (and a bit of javascript). It would be nice to be more agnostic and to attract non java developers. The core (Server part) could still be in Java but it would be nice that UIs and extensions could be developed in any language. One architecture that could achieve this would be to have a Core Server exposing all operations as REST APIs. This would decouple the Server part from the Client part. It also means having all XWiki API modules offering REST APIs and making it extra easy to add new REST APIs.
I agree with the thinking because I feel Velocity has lived out it's useful life, it drops all of its variables to the global scope and doesn't have functions which makes debugging terrible and it is positively alien to almost everyone who comes to XWiki. That said, I want to caution about the lure of anything-anywhere-polyglotism. Each language has it's own ecosystem. Virt.x project made a system where they advertized you could program in Java, Javascript, Groovy, Ruby or Ceylon. As far as I know, this project has not gotten any significant traction and I think this is because their Javascript is still alien to the Nodejs community, their Ruby is still alien to the Rails community, etc. My opinion is we must choose between being a little piece of a bigger ecosystem (node, php, etc.) or we must build our own ecosystem (what we have been doing so far). That said, I still think we should begin phasing out Velocity. My recommendation is we pick a language which works reasonably well for our needs yet has significant familiarity and then begin to make this language the Lingua franca of XWiki and begin porting our Velocity code and documentation over to it.
* Greatly simplify development of XWiki Extensions. There are several directions that I can think of: ** Direction 1: Expose the resources making up an Extension on the file system and let users use their favorite tools to write the content (web IDEs, text editors, etc) ** Direction 2: Develop an IDE in the cloud. Again there are 2 options here: *** Take ownership of the XWiki Web IDE application and push it much further *** Go in the direction of integrating with a well-known cloud IDE such as Eclipse Che/CodeEnvy (with pre-built workspaces, docker VMs and one click deploy to test your extension, direct deployment of extensions to e.x.o, etc). ** Other: In general, make it faster to develop extensions. The advantage of the Cloud IDE or Web IDE is that it removes the burden of setting up the tools on your local machine (maven, java, etc) so someone new to XWiki should be operational under 5 minutes to run the first tutorial.
From observation of the patterns which engineers choose to take when not pushed, I find that they are generally more comfortable with direction 1. Obviously we in the Research team would be thrilled to see WebIDE take on a new life as an XWiki product but I find that engineers will go to war for their text editor and prefer a process which is more inline with what they know from nodejs, php or ruby on rails. The issues which I have observed blocking people who come to the platform from outside are: * APIs are complex and undiscoverable, it's ok to put them on the website (php, nodejs do this) but they need to be first on google when you search XWiki API. * No clear connection between development and github. * Release process is crazy: requires maven flags, settings.xml, PGP keys, java versions. Compared to `npm publish` or bower where you need only git tag and you're done, this is stone age. * Fragility because of layers of legacy code: for people used to throwing things together with node, ruby or php, the level of fault handling which is required to make a stable XWiki app is like working on the OS kernel. 1-3 are resolvable but #4 is something that is usually only fixed by doing a ground-up rewrite of the application, something which will become easier and easier as time goes on due to the ever maturing tools available in different ecosystems. This is an oppertunity and a risk, the oppertunity is that we can take our body of knowledge and use it to build something new which is cheaper to maintain and more exciting for others to use, the risk is that others will be increasingly able to do the same. A solution to everything is that we don't think of XWiki so much as a programming platform and try to just make a very good KM tool, then we only fight #4 internally.
* Promote our SOLR Query Language as the main query language for XWiki and deprecate XWQL/HQL. Goal: make querying independent of the stores (right now we have a single store implemented on a RDBMS but we can imagine in the future moving to another type of store, and even to multiple stores). ** Make it easy for extensions to contribute new SOLR indexes for their needs. ** Once we use only SOLR QL we can then more easily switch to a different database model. We would also need the next Generation XAR format to be able to fully export an XWiki instance (or some part of it) into a XAR and be able to reimport it (right now lots of stuff are not in the XAR such as data found in the permanent directory).
Personally I would run the other direction, limit the database type in order to limit the scope of problems which we might have to solve so we can concentrate on things which make customer value. One way to do this is use an internal database (absolute control) paired with a "replication" store (absolute flexibility).
* Move towards a container-based approach to install/deploy XWiki (docker, etc). The idea being to start being microservices-friendly. Right now we already have 2 such services in XWiki: external SOLR + office imports with an office server. We need to be able to include those in distributions and add more. It should be easy to develop a new microservice and set it up in XWiki for redistribution.
Docker images make problems go away for a tester so I agree with the idea, beware of microservices for microservices sake though and also word on the street is nobody uses docker in production so after the testing phase is over, people still need a solution to install for real.
** It may be interesting to investigate infrastructure frameworks such as kubernetes, apache karaf and the like. The goal being to build systems that are more responsive, resilient, auto-adaptive, elastic (see the reactive manifesto at http://www.reactivemanifesto.org/).
Buzzwords... please identify the pain-point first. I suppose this is a good place to say that right now, everybody in the tech space runs the risk of jumping from one dead technology to another because when an organization identifies that a particular technology in their stack is dead, they are often lead to adopt the one which is making the most buzz in the hopes of being a long time away from the (assumed inevitable) death of that technology. However, we must not lose sight of the Darwinian nature of technology lifecycles. Moving from a dead technology such as PrototypeJS to a "hot" technology such as AngularJS runs a great risk of picking a loser and then when we find that it's parent company abandons it in favor of Angular2 and the community abandons both in favor of ReactJS, we're hosed. If instead we move to a well established yet still reasonably modern technology such as JQuery, we have very little risk of this being uprooted. Globally I would recommend identifying what it is you want to make, then ensure there is a way to make business around it (otherwise the project will go the way of GNU/everything) and then finally start looking for the technologies/ecosystems which reach the best happy-medium between getting you where you want to be, making innovation so they will still be with you in the future and being stable and unlikely to go away. Thanks, Caleb
** We could imagine to be able to package our office import micro-services (ie including an office server) as an extension that can be installed and deployed in the XWiki system automatically. Ok that’s already a good start. Let me know if you feel excited by some of those and feel free to add more. Note that the idea here is to brainstorm about large architecture changes. Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
