XIP = XWiki Importable Package :) sounds like ZIP, so I think is funny :) Thanks, Caty
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > > > > > > On 2 May 2017, at 16:36, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >>> On 2 May 2017, at 16:05, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi devs, > > >>> > > >>> I'm currently working on a new package format to package a bunch of > > >>> extensions into a single file. > > >>> > > >>> The first use case is to make offline install easier. We can't count > on > > >> all > > >>> in one XAR anymore (plus all in one XAR prduces very crappy > extensions) > > >> so > > >>> I was thinking about providing a generic package containing all the > > >>> extensions you need in it. It will simply be a zip containing > > extensions > > >> in > > >>> the same format than Extension Manager local repository so that you > can > > >>> unzip it it there (or later use some UI to "import" it). > > >>> > > >>> So now I need a name for this new package. Since extension descriptor > > >> file > > >>> extension is "xed" (for "XWiki Extension Descriptor") I was thinking > > >> about > > >>> naming it XEP (for "XWiki Extension Package"). Any better idea ? > > >>> > > >>> For now my plan is to provide the following: > > >>> * a new Maven handler for <packaging>xep</packaging> > > >>> * a new Maven mojo "xep" in the existing extension Maven plugin > > >>> * start using it with the new platform flavor which is supposed to > > >> replace > > >>> XE so that people can have something to use for offline installs > > >>> > > >>> WDYT ? > > >> > > >> Sounds good. > > >> > > >> Regarding the naming, assuming we need a file extension other than > ZIP, > > >> "XWiki Extension Package” seems like a package for a single XWiki > > Extension. > > >> > > >> Some ideas. Why not something in the name that suggest it’s a > > repository. > > >> > > >> For example: XWiki Extension Repository Archive or XWiki Repository > > >> Archive for short, which, using a 3LA, would translate into XRA. > > >> > > >> XAR = XWiki Archive = a single extension > > >> XRA = XWiki Repository Archive = a repository of extensions = several > > >> extensions > > >> > > >> We could also have XWiki Extension Repository, i.e. “XER”, which would > > >> also be one letter change from XAR: > > >> > > >> XAR = XWiki Archive = a single extension > > >> XER = XWiki Extension Repository = a repository of extensions = > several > > >> extensions > > >> > > > > > > I'm fine with XER. > > > > > > > > >> Now since the users will need to unzip this binary and they won’t > import > > >> it (as they do for XAR), it would be better for it to be ZIP as > > otherwise > > >> it’ll harder to unzip (no double-clicking on it for ex). > > >> > > > > > > As I said I think we'll have a UI for it at some point. I just don't > > think > > > I will have time to work on that in the new platform flavor scope (or > > maybe > > > just a quick tool in > > > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Extension+Tweak). > > > > I know you said that but IMO the primary usage is for users to unzip into > > a given directory and the easiest is to provide a ZIP to them. Even if we > > have an import UI, we can still offer the ZIP to that UI… > > > > So at this point, I don’t fully understand why we’d need something other > > than zip. > > > > Sounds like we might be overcomplicated things. On the maven side, we > > could use the maven assembly plugin to generate the zip. > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > Just using assembly plugin is not enough because you also need get the > dependencies, put them in the right sub-folders, generate the extensions > descriptors and exclude dependencies that are already part of the WAR (in > flavor package use case) so you need a special mojo to take care of all > that. also it's still a specific package with a specific format that happen > to be based on zip, I find it more clear to give it a specific file > extension (it "certify" that you won't get surprise when unzipping it). > > Double clicking on the file is really not a major use case for me since > this is going to be used mostly on servers. When you do "unzip myfile" the > file extension does not really matter much. > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > Thanks > > >> -Vincent > > >> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Thomas Mortagne > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thomas Mortagne > > > > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne >
