On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Denny Vrandečić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am just wondering: I have two small extensions ready to release, and > several others are brewing. As was discussed on this list, it was > preferred not to have such extensions part of the core code, in order to > not increase code bloat, feature creep, and to increase maintainability > of the core code, etc.
Yay, extensions :). > > But most of these extensions, imho, do not warrant a full directory in > MediaWiki's extension code. Unlike e.g. Semantic Drilldown, Halo or > Semantic Forms, they are really small, usually just a handful of files > plus some documentation. So in order not to bloat the extensions > directory in the SVN more with even more SemanticX stuff, I would prefer > to bundle them in one place. But I am not sure if this is the best > approach, so I am asking you. My opinion is that directories are cheap so I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing if "tiny" extensions get their own directory. That said, I can see some benefit to grouping SMW extensions together, if nothing else for discovery (although I think Yaron is trying to fill some of that need with the community wiki @ smw.referata.com). > > My idea would be to have in the extensions directory a directory called > SemanticMediaWikiExt that holds a number of different extensions that > can be individually switched on or off. So it would be: > > extensions/ > + SemanticMediaWiki/ > + SemanticMediaWikiExt/ > ++ GoogleCharts/ > ++ GraphViz/ > > etc. > This would not affect already existing extensions. > > So, what is your opinion? > > 1) Make that SemanticMediaWikiExt directory. > 2) Each extension should have a single directory. > 3) There should be an extension folder in SemanticMediaWiki > 4) Something else (explain) > 5) Whatever I believe every extension should have a single directory, whether or not those are all contained in SemanticMediaWikiExt or SemanticMediaWiki/Extensions. The primary reason for this is that it enables us to craft a "deployment" structure in our repository using svn:externals to point to specific directories that we want to pull in (one day we'll get this working efficiently and write it up). So I'm certain that #2 is a good idea; either #1 or #3 may be as well, but I don't feel nearly as strongly. > > As soon as this is settled, I will re-release the currently defunct > Google Chart extension, and also one new one about graphs. > > Cheers, > denny > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Semediawiki-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
