Hi, I agree with Edy that we shouldn’t mix the type of an extension with the categories it belongs to.
Said differently I wouldn’t like to see an extension put in both the “flavor” and the “drawing” categories. It would be comparing apples and oranges. So it would seem that there are 3 different notions: * The extension packaging: XAR, JAR * The extension type(s) (what it is): flavor, application, wiki macro, skin, library * The extension categories (what it does): drawing, editor, authentication, mail, etc At the implementation level we could imagine using XWiki Tags for representing extension categories. We may want to have hierarchical tags in the future though. Having tags have pros and cons, one of the being that users can create new categories on the fly. We would need to decide if we want that or if we wish to control the category list. Thanks -Vincent On 6 Feb 2015 at 13:43:35, Eduard Moraru (enygma2...@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2...@gmail.com)) wrote: > Hi, > > IMO, a Flavor is a type of extension, but extension type should not be a > packaging characteristic, but a functional one (e.g. skin, macro, > application, flavor, group, etc). > > xar, jar, zip, rar, etc. should be strictly a packaging technical detail of > the Extension Manager's inner workings. > > I guess that my +1 goes to option 4), where an extension has 1 single value > declaring its type (you said category, I think it should be type, from the > user's POV). > > Again, from an user's POV, an extension should also declare one or more > categories it is part of, thus declaring its objective/business > logic/area/domain/etc. > > Let's take a real-work example for a physical tool/product such as a hammer. > name: HandyCo X300 > type: hammer > category: building, carpentry > packaging: cardboard box > > For applications: > name: App Within Minutes - UI > type: application > category: development, ease of use, etc. > packaging: xar > > For flavors: > name: Public Website > type: flavor > category: publishing, etc. > packaging: xar (can be empty xar just with dependencies or it can have > custom preferences for that flavor like what skin to use, what rights to > have, etc.) > > One note here is that we could also have a subtype. The use cases where > this might be useful would be macros (wiki macros, java macros, velocity > macros, etc.), themes (color theme, flamingo theme, etc.), applications > (standalone applications, AWM applications) etc. Not sure about this one, > food for thought for now, but the idea is that you might want to look for > "macros" at some point, but maybe at some other point you want to look just > for wiki macros. Maybe this can be achieved with simple filtering/("like" > queries) instead of using an actual field. > > Thanks, > Eduard > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) > > wrote: > > > Thomas, > > > > for 3) can you give me some example of what the other tags might be? except > > Flavor? Can extension be of multiple tags? > > > > Until now I think I prefer 4) > > > > Thanks, > > Caty > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Mortagne > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I'm not talking about implementation here, I'm talking about logic so > > > please forget about maven and repository manager. > > > > > > Since it seems to not be clear enough lets try to redo the list: > > > > > > 1) this is a special new type of extension, it's not a XAR and it's > > > not a JAR. It has it's own handler, install/uninstall behavior, > > > rights, etc > > > 2) In Extension you have isFlavor() which return true or false > > > 3) in Extension you get a list of tags and one of them may be "Flavor" > > > meaning this extension is a flavor > > > 4) in Extension you have a category and it might be "Flavor" meaning > > > this extension is a flavor > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) > > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I know what are the differences between 1-4. > > > > > > > > I assume: > > > > 1) needs to be defined in the .pom > > > > 2) ? > > > > 3) tag in repo app. The bad thing is that it's very easy to add a tag > > and > > > > we have so many tags already defined. Filtering is done through > > > livetable's > > > > tag cloud. The bad thing is that it will be harder for us if in the > > > future > > > > we will want to add that tag cloud also in EM. > > > > 4) type in repo app. > > > > 4) category? > > > > > > > > So not sure what is the difference between type and category. > > > > I would like a type in the repo app (so is this 1) or 4)?). We have a > > > > finite number of types and this way flavors will be special. If we want > > > to > > > > add the filtering we just need to add a select inside EM (that will be > > > able > > > > to filter apps, flavors, macros, colorthemes, pluggins, etc.). > > > > > > > > But you might not agree with me. Actually in the type field I would > > like > > > to > > > > have: Apps, Flavors, Skins, even if all of them are XARs. I don't care > > > how > > > > they are packaged, I care that they have different functionality, > > > different > > > > purposes and different places to activate in the XE interface (Skins > > are > > > > activated in Administration, Apps are accessible in AppBar, Flavors > > will > > > be > > > > suggested in the Wiki creation step). > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Caty > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Thomas Mortagne < > > > thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> OK I mixed a bit the number after a last miute refactoring of the > > > mail... > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Thomas Mortagne > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > Hi devs, > > > >> > > > > >> > There is many ways to make an extension a flavor and we need to > > chose > > > >> one. > > > >> > > > > >> > Here are a few I have in mind: > > > >> > > > > >> > 1) Extension of type FLAVOR (compared to XAR and JAR types for > > > example) > > > >> > 2) A Boolean indicating if an extension is a flavor > > > >> > > > >> > 2) A tag "Flavor" (or some of the name to be decided later) > > > >> > 3) A unique category "Flavor" (or some of the name to be decided > > > later) > > > >> > > > >> It's of course > > > >> > > > >> 3) A tag "Flavor" (or some other name to be decided later) > > > >> 4) A unique category "Flavor" (or some other name to be decided later) > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > I don't like 1) because a flavor does have anything special and I > > > >> > don't see the point of reimplementing a new extension type handler > > > >> > just to make an extension a flavor. > > > >> > > > > >> > I'm really not a fan for 2) either since it would makes this part of > > > >> > the core of extension API which I really don't like since flavor are > > > >> > XWiki runtime specific while you can use the xwiki-commons part of > > > >> > Extension Manager for many use cases that don't have anything to do > > > >> > with XWiki right now. > > > >> > > > > >> > So I'm hesitating between 3) and 4). When I started thinking about > > it > > > >> > I was more into 3) since we already have tags in XWiki Repository > > but > > > >> > since I saw that in both Android and IOS each application is in a > > > >> > > > >> > unique category I'm tempted to change my mind and give my +1 to 3). > > > >> > > > >> I'm sure you understood it's 4) here :) > > > >> > > > >> > Plus exposing categories is a nice new feature anyway. > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
