Use of Neos and Flowpack namespace

Using Neos & Flow Neos Plugin Development
1

This post is a summary of a discussion which took place at the Neos code sprint in Vienna.

Neos namespace:

  • packages which are included in the distribution
  • they have to be compatible with the old and the recent releases

Flowpack namespace:

What Flowpack is, will be told by the new website. If you are interested, have a look here:

ToDos:

2

Additionally we talked about a set of rules that should apply to Flowpack packages and in extension also to Neos packages which are handled even “stricter” obviously.

This are the first rough ideas:

Possible Flowpack Rules

MUST

  • Follow Neos coding guidelines
  • Should provide versions working with all maintained Flow/Neos versions (within time X after release)
  • have tests and test automation
  • package is considered stable and has been in use before moving to Flowpack

SHOULD

  • at least one team member constributes
  • Security maintenance
  • Contact person/group defined
  • At least very solid readme to describe installation and getting it running as well as options
3

All the unmaintained packages are now archived on Github

And good progress with the new flowpack.org website, the minimalistic version should be online tomorrow.

image.jpg2606×1620 1.1 MB

4

Hi there,

great initiative, thanks for working on this topic!

As already mentioned before, I would like to see general guidelines about the repository names as well. We currently mix <composer-name-without-vendor> and <Package.Key> .

Obviously there are more important things, especially when you work exclusively with composer. But as you’re on it… :wink:

5

@samuel.hauser continue to work on it today by adding basic content page support and showcase the list of Flowpackers and contributors list for each package.

6

I’d prefer <composer-name-without-vendor>

7

Yes composer-name all the things. Down with package keys!

8

I agree. So we should go for the regular composer directory structure in the long run as well, right?

9

That would be the end goal. I would probably first want to see if we can allow composer names in stuff like routes and such.