I would hate to see this project retire. Adam you bring up good points. I can get the ball rolling with the Docker image. I'll see what I can get done over the next week or so.
-Jonathan Leong On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Adam John <[email protected]> wrote: > I have to weigh in and say that I agree that the bar here was set high from > several perspectives. > > I'm currently evaluating what components of this project can be most useful > for incorporation into 2 separate projects. If either one moves forward in > the next 6 months, there will be more developers actively involved here. > > That said, I've watched some of the transition videos from Google folks and > read a lot of the docs, reviewed code and worked on implementing this > project for myself. It is daunting and would benefit overall from 2 > significant - imho critical - updates; > (1) the Product itself needs real changes - like the concept of bots needs > pulled out from core terminology and revamped as a more current common > concept / ie agents. There needs to be better organization of the Product > from concept to contribution. This is not to diminish the vast resources > present, only to highlight an improvement area. > (2) the Architecture needs serious review and revision to figure out how > best to leverage other projects and allow focus on the specific benefits > this project enables. The technology stack overall needs better separation > at least from a newcomers perspective. > As a third factor, and #1 on my list for adoption is rolling docker images > for the project. This is essential in my humble opinion to allow new > developers to focus on the pieces they feel most equipped to contribute > comfortably... > > I don't know how the major changes I am suggesting get introduced and > discussed in much more detail. I'm hoping that perhaps I lieue of a > potentially dismissive email "vote" ... Maybe a virtual conference would be > of interest? I would hope that the participants of such a convention would > be the core of a nascent rebirth. Yes I am volunteering to help take this > on if there is interest... > > Thanks, > > Adam John > (914) 623-8433 > > On Aug 30, 2016 12:43 PM, "Zachary Yaro" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am in a similar boat. I have front-end development skills, but I > struggle to fully understand the back-end functionality or begin separating > the client from the server. > > Zachary Yaro > > On Aug 30, 2016 11:51 AM, "Thomas Wrobel" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have tried on 3 separate occasions to understand the server. Its > > simply not in my skillset and I don't have the time to learn. I don't > > wish to sound arrogant there, theres learning needed for anything of > > course. But its too much investment - I want to apply skills that I > > already have. Last time I tried to get into wave development (which > > was I admit a few years back) it took me 3 days to even compile the > > server. Which is frustrating for someone that just wants to work on a > > client. > > > > So I am certainly not waiting for permission, I am waiting for a > > prerequisite of a server/client split. I understand I can neither > > demand or expect such a thing. Developers on a project like this just > > have to jump in on what they feel like. Nothing can really be expected > > and I accept that. > > I simply am informing there's "lesser" developers like me that could > > work on bits if certain other things happen. > > >
