On 05/01/2018 11:52 AM, Scott King wrote: > Ondrej, > > I’m glad we cleared this up. No need for an apology, I write long messages, > it’s easy for misunderstandings to happen. A webex sounds like a great next > step! Can I assume you’ll be setting that up? My employer doesn’t use webex ☹.
... > -I think we agree on this more than you realize. I agree that there should be > a fully production ready turnkey iotivity cloud ready to go at the drop of a > hat (or execution of a helm chart ☺) but I also feel that we should first > focus on getting a rock solid “backend agnostic” cloud interface > implementation before focusing on having a turnkey solution. I believe this > for the following reasons: > > --Forces good architectural design: the team that originally developed vitess > (CNCF hosted linearly scalable MySQL) was all from youtube, but they made > sure to place an emphasis on implementing features in a FOSS-friendly way > before integrating it into google’s proprietary infrastructure. This was > because they knew that if vitess was tightly coupled to google > infrastructure, it wouldn’t gain the same adoption. By that same logic, I’d > assert that we need to ensure that the iotivity cloud implementation isn’t > tightly coupled to mongo/kafka/zookeeper just to weigh in with a +1. I tried to trim this to stuff I was commenting on. It's not easy for any open source project to figure this out: as a "framework" the core task is to deliver a robust mechanism for doing useful things that people can build on for their application, product, etc. On the other hand it's clear that the less turnkey the project is, the tougher the early uptake cycle. It would be really unfortunate if the rush to produce one turnkey solution would lead to bad architectural choices (I think we have more than a few questionable ones already). _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
