> On 10 Jul 2017, at 11:15, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Thomas Mortagne > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9 Jul 2017, at 13:55, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Note to be clear: I prefer having the feature in the Extension Tweak >>>> Extension that not having it at all ;) But I also prefer having it by >>>> default in EM as an advanced. The main use case/need I see is >>>> installing/uninstalling XAR applications and those are not really >>>> dangerous in general. >>>> > >>>> I also agree with you that we need to try preserving the stability of >>>> XWiki as much as possible. We could even make some checks and only allow >>>> some use cases (the XAR ones). > > There is no real reason for removing a XAR to be always safe. XAR > could contain classes or tools you require, just think about what > removing xwiki-platform-appwithinminutes-ui or > xwiki-platform-livetable-ui would do to most of the applications.
Ok, indeed if we don’t allow uninstalling core extensions (and that’s a good thing :)) then it’s the same whether it’s jars or xars. And uninstalling those extensions can break your wiki behavior or wiki pages but they shouldn't break the wiki itself, which is good. Thanks -Vincent > >>>> >>>> Also there are some uses case for which I don’t understand why they’re >>>> dangerous. Why would it be dangerous for example to uninstall the Tour >>>> Application? >>> >> >> Again you are mixing different things here. The Tour application >> should be listed as optional in the default flavor so there is no need >> to force anything. >> >>> At least the ability to uninstall an extension without uninstalling its >>> dependencies should be a built in feature, do we agree with that? >> >> Are you sure that's what you want to ask ? That's how it always worked. >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent >>>> >>>>> On 9 Jul 2017, at 13:47, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Thomas/All, >>>>> >>>>>> On 9 Jul 2017, at 13:28, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7 Jul 2017, at 12:22, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 12:16, Thomas Mortagne >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> I really don't understand how you end up with this reasoning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only one that knows if a dependency is optional is the developer >>>>>>>> I agree. >>>>>>>> of the extension so what is a workaround here is the huge mess >>>>>>>> generator you are proposing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I already said 99% of our dependencies are really not optional, in >>>>>>>> practice only a few flavor dependencies are and one or two other use >>>>>>>> cases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is two different subjects that get mixed up here: >>>>>>>> * clearly state in an extension what is absolutely required to work >>>>>>>> and what is a nice to have, this is standard stuff and this is what we >>>>>>>> are talking about here >>>>>>>> * hack your way in the extension index to remove an extension without >>>>>>>> removing the extension claiming to require that, this is at best >>>>>>>> something for >>>>>>>> http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Extension+Tweak >>>>>>>> Or the UI of EM can provide a big red warning based dialog to allow >>>>>>>> admin to overwrite the default behaviour with a message about the >>>>>>>> risk. Just best of both world proposal :), but I don’t know how >>>>>>>> complex it could be. I am also fine with a Extension Tweak solution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree and this is exactly what I was hinting at in my past reply with: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> " What if I want to uninstall an extension which is NOT marked as >>>>>>> optional (ie force uninstall at your own risks)?” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I disagree that Extension Tweak is enough. This is quite technical and >>>>>>> not installed by default. I’d really prefer that this be a feature of >>>>>>> EM (force install and force uninstall). >>>>>> >>>>>> So you are saying that going against the recommendations expressed by >>>>>> an extension author is less technical than installing an extension >>>>>> dedicated to dangerous manipulations ? >>>>> >>>>> When it’s needed the user will not find it (very low discoverability) and >>>>> installing an unsupported extension (by the xwiki core dev team) is also >>>>> not a great idea for doing anything that can be dangerous. >>>>> >>>>> It would really be awkward to me that you’d need to install an extension >>>>> for being allowing to force install/uninstall an extension. That sounds >>>>> too small and weird a use case. This just looks like an Advanced Option >>>>> that should be there by default in EM. And here the user doesn’t care >>>>> about all the other stuff that the Extension Tweak Extension can do. >>>>> Personally I dislike this Extension Tweak Extension and I see it as a >>>>> temporary bandaid till we get its features inside XWiki. I see it in a >>>>> similar way as I see a *Util class in Java (which is bad design); it >>>>> means that the features are missing from the default. >>>>> >>>>> Another good example is the ability to reinstall a SNAPSHOT extension. >>>>> Right now you have to use the Extension Tweak extension (to clear the >>>>> extension cache) in all wiki where you want to do that and since you do >>>>> that in dev mode and that in dev mode you keep having different xwiki >>>>> instances, it just doesn’t work and the extra work is too overwhelming. >>>>> So similarly we should allow force reinstall of an extension, even for >>>>> snapshots, and not need the Extension Tweak extension for that. At the >>>>> very least, the ability to clear the cache should be built in, in the >>>>> Admin UI for EM. >>>>> >>>>> I’m not saying that Extensions that are not useful in general, just that >>>>> there are some admin features that needs to be built in, to make life >>>>> simpler. And what’s in Extension Tweaks are good candidates. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that the "Force install” use case is for example for forcing to >>>>>>> install a XAR extension even if the version requirements are not >>>>>>> honored. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> -Vincent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Denis Gervalle >>>>>>>> SOFTEC sa - CEO >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It`s very nice to hear we are progressing on this topic, but I`m not >>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>> fond of the current solution. Marking dependencies as optional still >>>>>>>>> puts >>>>>>>>> the responsibility on the developer to actually do that and makes the >>>>>>>>> admin >>>>>>>>> dependent on the developer's choice and discipline. Feels more like a >>>>>>>>> workaround that we will end up having to support. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Working for building whitelists is a tedious process and we will >>>>>>>>> surely >>>>>>>>> miss things, and this is only about things that we control in the >>>>>>>>> standard >>>>>>>>> flavor. What about extensions and their dependencies? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure, as Caty suggests, one option is to make everything optional by >>>>>>>>> default and only have to explicitly specify if a dependency is >>>>>>>>> mandatory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hoping we can get to a point where all the power is to the admin >>>>>>>>> running >>>>>>>>> XWiki, not the developer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Getting past the above "critique", it's still very nice to hear that >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> will now have one solution to this old problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Eduard >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Thomas Mortagne >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Thomas, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Jul 2017, at 17:00, Thomas Mortagne >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I just implemented https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XCOMMONS-1229 >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> allows to indicate that a dependency will be installed by default >>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> does not have a string dependency link with the extension, meaning >>>>>>>>>>>> that uninstalling it won't impact the backward dependencies (so >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> are not really backward dependencies in that case :)). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is very nice. What if I want to uninstall an extension which >>>>>>>>>>> is NOT >>>>>>>>>> marked as optional (ie force uninstall at your own risks)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it's not optional then... it's not optional and require to >>>>>>>>>> uninstall backward dependency. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now we need to decide what exactly is optional in Standard flavor. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some ideas: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * application-help-center >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * xwiki-platform-menu-ui >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * xwiki-platform-wiki-ui-mainwiki >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * xwiki-platform-office-ui >>>>>>>>>>>> * xwiki-platform-invitation-ui >>>>>>>>>>>> * xwiki-platform-appwithinminutes-ui >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think it needs some refactoring first since the pages it generates >>>>>>>>>> still need some pages from AWM. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually I tough about that and IMO if an extension has AWM pages it >>>>>>>>>> should have a non optional dependency on AWM (i.e. it would be >>>>>>>>>> optional from flavor point of view but non optional from other >>>>>>>>>> extension point of view). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * xwiki-platform-linkchecker-ui >>>>>>>>>>>> * xwiki-platform-sandbox >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * xwiki-platform-sharepage-ui >>>>>>>>>>>> * xwiki-platform-distribution-flavor-tour >>>>>>>>>>>> * application-templates-ui >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did not actually tried to uninstall those so it's possible it's >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> a good idea to uninstall some of them right now (hardcoded use >>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere maybe). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The list sounds good to start with (we need to test remove them >>>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>> ofc). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>> -Vincent >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne
