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. 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 > > > > > > -- > Denis Gervalle > SOFTEC sa - CEO > eGuilde sarl - CTO > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
