Ah, so if it's a matter of having nice names *only* for application entry-points (like Blog application, Wiki Manager Application, etc), then actually option 3) makes more sense to me. Add pretty names *only* to those modules that need them, using a custom property. As I`ve initially read proposals 2) and 3), I understood that all modules would *have* to use that pretty names, either using the <name> tag (proposal 2) or using a custom property (proposal 3).
If indeed the pretty name requirement is only for top-level/application-entry-points, then I`m +1 for option 3) (as modules are many an applications are a few) and +0 for option 2) (since top applications are not that hard to spot in the code), but leave technical modules alone since they will show up as dependencies. Thanks, Eduard On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > What Thomas and I are proposing is exactly that: to keep the current names > on e.x.o. Now what you propose when you vote +1 for 1) is the opposite, > i.e. for example instead of having "Blog Application" you'd have "XWiki > Platform - Blog - UI" (on > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Blog+Application). I > don't see how worse it could be… :) > > The reason we don't have any complaints is exactly because those names are > good! > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
