On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > Hi Thomas and all, > >> On 6 May 2017, at 18:39, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote: >> >> IMO we should keep XAR format for applications and use a different >> format for backups. > > Let me explain why I think it would be better to use the XAR format for this: > > * It’s simpler to have 1 format than several for our users. It’s also > confusing to have 2 formats that similar things (e.g. being able to > backup/restore pages with both formats).We’re already going to introduce a > new XIP format too. A third one would increase the complexity.
I don't think you fully understood me. I'm not proposing a new format here, I'm telling you we already have a format and associated input/output filters which support both wiki pages and extensions and contrary to what you propose also support any custom data provided by extensions current and future (prepared mails in database, events stream data, instance id even if I think we should move that in the permanent dir which would fix several issues we currently have, etc.). As I said the idea would be to stop using XAR for general backup (job it does not do well anymore compare to the old times where all was in wiki pages), not having several backup formats. > > * The XAR name is not limited to saving wiki pages. It actually means “XWiki > Archive” which is perfect for representing the backup of a full XWiki > instance. > > * Users already know the XAR format (it’s documented) for backup/restore. > Introducing a new format would cause major confusions. Yes they know it's a ZIP with wiki pages in it, what you propose is a new format in practice even if you reuse an old name for it. > > * Adding new data to the XAR format doesn't make it incompatible with > previous versions. It will not crash the importer because it's bulletproof enough but you will get tons of errors because it will hit a lot of files it does not understand. There is no room right now for custom data in the XAR format specifications. On the proposal itself I really don't think it's that simple: just package the permanent dir as it is is not a good idea IMO. How do you merge it in the running instance which already have a permanent dir with different things in it ? How extension manager or any other extension will know you added stuff in there and how the generic import even know what to do in case of collision ? Also when using filesystem attachment you end up duplicating them both in wiki pages and permanent directory. When talking about importable format I really prefer a format organized specifically for import/export that just zip the permanent directory which is really not designed for it. It's way better to let extensions deal with those data the way they want which is what happen in the Filter XML format currently. > > * We can reuse the same UI and make modifications to it. Like for example a > checkbox to save the permanent directory data in the XAR (we should compute > and display the size as a hint in the UI). In addition I believe we should > also support saving the generated XAR locally on the server if the user > wishes to since that XAR could get very large (several GB potentially with > large attachments). > > * We’re talking about the XAR format here. > In term of implementation we can definitely use the Filter module (and we > should - I thought it was already the case). What makes you think it's not the case ? > > What do others think? > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> We actually already have this new backup format I think: the XML >> format you can find in Filter module. It currently support both wiki >> pages and extensions. Also this format/module is extensible enough for >> any extension to add its own data without touching it (it does not >> know anything about wiki pages or extensions for example). What is >> missing is probably a dedicated backup oriented UI which would be >> based on this format instead of XAR format. >> >> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: >>> Fixed the message’s subject… >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>>> On 6 May 2017, at 12:10, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Feedback from user (see >>>> http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/DownloadFormFeedback): >>>> >>>> “ >>>> Hello! There is very lack simple data backup. The lack of a simple backup >>>> of all data (via the web interface) greatly limits the use of Xwiki. Such >>>> a backup is available at Confluence. >>>> Another disadvantage is a complicated backup and a complicated >>>> installation. >>>> “ >>>> >>>> I think that a first step to answer this would be to develop a new XAR >>>> format version (v1.4 for example, see >>>> http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/XAR%20Module%20Specifications) >>>> that adds support for saving/restoring the permanent directory. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne > -- Thomas Mortagne
