Why not simply try to improve what we already have, by modularizing stuff, separate server from web client, documenting and providing ways of people to develop their products on top of Wave? I for one am not interested at all in current web client functionality, but rather in the wave-model and OT.
Also, moving things from a strong-typed language and powerful framework like Java to Python or Ruby or Node.js or whatever you believe is the new kid on the block, seems a little nonsense to me. People just don't understand Wave internals and won't be able to implement it whatever technologies you choose. Also, writing things from scratch seem a little far fetched, as I doubt anyone will be able to take on that task for the medium/long term. Please don't take me wrong here, but I've seen plenty discussion like this in other big projects and the result was ultimately the same, too much talk, no code. I wouldn't like this to happen to Wave. PP On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wavers. > > It is a very positive sign that the Wave project has seen increase activity > in recent weeks. However, recent conversations point to the fact that we > are at a decision point with Apache Wave. > > History > ------- > > Google donated quite a bit of code to Apache for the Wave project. It is > somewhat functional and is what the community is using to drive towards a > release. However, the current community has little expedience with the code > base. We didn't designed it and in many cases we don't understand it. > > As many have pointed out the code base is 1) Not easy to develop, 2) Hard to > learn, 3) and not modularized between the client and server. These issues > are hampering WiaB's adoption. > > Several people have suggested rewriting the codebase to separate the server > and client and to greatly simplify the architecture. > > > > I think as a community we need to decide what we want to do. I have put > forth three options which I would like the community to comment on. > > > 1) Keep the current code base and just push ahead. > > Pros: > ----- > - We have a functional codebase that we evolve over time. > - Potentially graduate sooner. > > Cons: > ----- > - Hard to get new developers excited about working with the code base. > - Poetnetially slows the evolution of a scalable architecture that delivers > what the community is asking for. > > > 2) Ditch the current code base and start new. > > Pros: > ----- > - We can design something that meets the community needs. > - We can simply the design from the beginning. > > Cons: > ----- > - We are very close to a release, this approach would set back future > releases. > > > 3) Keep the current code base AND start a new one. > > Pros: > ----- > - Can keep driving through the apache process. > - We still have a working product. > - We can start the redesign now. > > Cons: > ----- > - We barely have enough developers to maintain the current codebase. > - If interest in the new codebase takes off, existing codebase would > atrophy. > > > Comments please. Thanks. > > ~Michael > >
