Hi Catalin, A new healthy fight! :) See below. On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:32 PM, Catalin Hritcu wrote: [snip]

...

Pros: * A single way for all xwiki clients to connect to XWiki servers * Less maintenance, less documentation, less work in general since someone else is developing swizzle :). This point only is huge.

I would not stress this. Actually I already worked quite a lot on improving swizzle so far and I think there are many other ways we will have to improve swizzle. What is nice about it was having a visible working project to start from, rather than implementing it from scratch. Having David to "guard" the source is just the cherry on top of the cake.

You didn't spend even 1% of the time it took to create Swizzle as it is today and if you think about how swizzle will evolve in the future that percentage drops down to 0.01%. This is why I thought this should be stressed out :) [snip]

...

* If swizzle goes away or is abandonned then it'll be bad for xwiki and we'd need to support it/reintegrate it.

First, swizzle is open source so can't "go away", we can always continue to maintain it.

That's harder than you think. Radeox went away and are we maintaining it? Nope. Of course we can always say that it's because its architecture was too limited, etc but had it been maintained its architecture could have evolved too. The same would happen with swizzle if it goes away IMO. But it's not only an issue of Swizzle going away because it's abandoned. Imagine a competitor project appears and it's better than swizzle for XWiki. How do we tell all our users that they have to redo all their client code. We won't and thus we probably won't move to this better project because we have standardized on Swizzle. It's about having a stable client-side interface. I much prefer the approach where we define our model objects (we need them anyway on the server so it may even be possible to share some of them on the client - Not sure about this but it's a thought) and our interfaces and we keep the implementation separate. I'm 100% for implementing those interfaces with Swizzle. In addition we need to offer a XWiki-specific API so instead of offering several remoting APIs I propose we offer only one. Then it's up to the implementations to implement them. The confluence implementation (using Swizzle) could throw NotImplementedException for stuff it doesn't implement so that client code using it will be 100% confluence-compatible if that's the user's desire. And we would be able to have a single unified API that has all the XWiki-specific stuff.

And if it ever goes abandoned how would this be any worse than what we have now? Now we have two "little-swizzle" implementations one of them was _already_ abandoned, and the other is very likely to grow into a full fledged "swizzle". Even if we have to maintain one swizzle it's a big gain over having to maintain many.

See above.

...

Actually this is a point that is bothering me Catalin. I think we'd need our own object model and expose that as a component and then provide a default implementation using swizzle behind the hood. Same as what we're doing for everything. This will also make the API seamless WRT extra APIs we have for xwiki (like getting objects, etc).

It is true that swizzle provides an implementation but not an interface. However, why can't we provide interfaces as part of the swizzle project ? Why can't we make swizzle more component-friendly by just changing it? Why would we need another XWiki-specific wrapper layer?

Swizzle is not our project. We could become committers to it of course but I assure you it's still going to be 100 times more difficult to evolve Swizzle than to evolve XWiki code. For 2 reasons: * We "own" XWiki. All committers on XWiki are interested by XWiki only. * Swizzle has to stay generic and making a generic change is always more difficult than making a specific change. The same applies to the fact that Swizzle if confluence-specific. Regarding the confluence-specific, it bothers me that the only remoting interface we're providing is confluence-specific and has confluence written all over. I think we should offer a XWiki-specific API and let the user choose the implementation he wants transparently (confluence or not).

One advantage I see of improving swizzle rather than hiding it away is that this way we are guaranteed(!) to stay compatible with confluence on the common features. While if you start to develop wrappers on top of swizzle that may or may not be the case.

We wouldn't loose this feature by using Swizzle as an implementation of our API.

...

So IMO: * We shouldn't use swizzle directly * We should develop our own client side Java Objects and API *interface* for people interacting with XWiki remotely.

Why can't interfaces be done inside the swizzle project ? Why should we try to hide swizzle away ?

See above.

...

- That API should be independent of the protocol used.

Swizzle is actually already independent of the protocol used. It could work with SOAP as well as XML-RPC if somebody went into the trouble to reimplement everything for SOAP. The interface would be the same and a client would not be able to tell any difference.

Then all the best. We can benefit from that.

...

- A default implementation should be done using swizzle. It'll be mostly empty and only call out swizzle objects/swizzle APIs * XEClipse should be refactored to use this API * This API should be developed using components and using the new org.xwiki namespace.

Why can't this be done in an interoperable fashion part of the swizzle project ? Why can't the namespace be org.codehaus.swizzle :) ? Isn't this "not-made-here" attitude?

Yep and that's important IMO (see above). The strategy I'd like to have for XWiki from now on is to develop components and provide XWiki interface classes. The implementations can be done using whatever external frameworks.

...

WDYT?

I think that we have no good reason to hide swizzle away under more wrapper layers since _swizzle_is_a_wrapper_itself_, and I think that we can solve any modularity/componentization problems inside the swizzle project.

See above again. Let's see what others say. Thanks -Vincent