Server folk get that gwt away from me! Gwt folk; get that server stuff away from me!
:P -- http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. On 1 September 2016 at 02:40, Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > In regards to the meeting, please let us know how it goes ill be unable to > attend due to my current uni workload (exams and assignments are > everywhere). > > In regards with starting from scratch, I did purpose this idea before hand > but it is 3 large scale projects on its own, Wave is an interesting project > in the sense that you have to build most of the entire ecosystem it runs > on, whether that be a multiuser text editor (for any platform) and an OT > transform layer that sits below it. Then below those layers sits the server > which relies on the specs of the Schema's (Document, Conversation, ....). > > I believe the current issue with the projects "complexity" is more the > front end bits which clutter the source, and there is multiple places it > lives and the dependence issues gwt brings in before the new current > version (not saying its great but its getting their). Being that this is > apache, most devs are java devs which arnt the best in front end > development, sure gwt is great but let it live completely differnt source > tree so the server can sit by itself, but that means recreating the > multi-user OT editor which no one so far wants to touch because like the > people at GitHub have found its very hard to optimise an editor and > generally using a non native language you are limited in your optimisations. > > Just my thoughts. > > ~ Evan > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 at 09:46 Benjamin B. <wixd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'll do my best to attend this meeting. It will be nice to see and discuss >> the plan, and from it, see where I can help :) >> >> But I agree with Zachary, restarting from zero might not be a good idea.. >> >> 2016-08-31 16:58 GMT+02:00 Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com >> >: >> >> > Adam, >> > >> > Thanks. I would love to brain stole with you all. >> > . >> > >> > ~Michael >> > >> > > On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Adam John <a...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > This is great thinking, Thomas! >> > > >> > > Can we use the Google Doc and add your thoughts there? >> > > Or a copy of it? >> > > I think email is great and all, but a Google Doc is a suitable Wave >> > > substitute for this work since in the end what I think we want here is >> A >> > > Plan. >> > > >> > > These are all excellent questions and worth proper discussion. >> > > >> > > 100%: small manageable steps. >> > > >> > > Any thoughts on a call / hangout to work things out? >> > > >> > > Requested attendees: >> > > >> > > 1. Greg Cochard >> > > 2. Jonathan Leong >> > > 3. Price Clark >> > > 4. Thomas Wrobel >> > > 5. Evan Hughes >> > > 6. *Everyone on this list!* >> > > >> > > ;) >> > > >> > > Thanks, again... >> > > >> > > AJ >> > > >> > > Adam John >> > > (914) 623-8433 >> > > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn < >> > http://mradamjohn.com/> >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> ""an entirely new Wave codebase"" >> > >> >> > >> Or even the first building block that would become that. >> > >> If wave goal is defined as something like, "some sort of open >> > >> federated protocol to selectively share informative securely between >> > >> users" >> > >> >> > >> Would the first steps be too; >> > >> a) define how data is synced between servers.Presumably from >> > >> exchanging the changes. >> > >> i) OT still I assume? >> > >> b) define how data is synced between clients.Presumably from >> > >> exchanging the changes. >> > >> i) OT again? maybe closely related to above? >> > >> c) How to identify users? (existing standard usable here?) >> > >> >> > >> d) Then start implementation of a reference server. >> > >> e) Then start implementation of a completely separated reference >> client. >> > >> f) THEN work on user interface aspects of the (various!) clients. >> > >> >> > >> This is all just spitballing. Feel free to put yay, nay or "hell no" >> > >> next to any of the above. >> > >> I just think if there is _any_ hope to survive outside apache we need >> > >> small, manageable steps - hopefully each one useful in itself. >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. >> > >> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> On 31 August 2016 at 13:53, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >> > >>> Adam, >> > >>> >> > >>> Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to help with the ApacheWave >> > >>> repos, I really don't want us to go that way. Wave is already >> available >> > >>> on Github as https://github.com/apache/incubator-wave. If this >> project >> > >>> folds, and the code goes to live on on github, it must be called >> > >>> something other than *apache* wave, as to call it Apache XYZ would >> be a >> > >>> misuse of a trademark. >> > >>> >> > >>> Let's decide whether or not the project continues here, and if it >> > >>> doesn't, then we'll discuss what happens with the various parts of >> the >> > >>> project once that decision is made. >> > >>> >> > >>> I still think that the best course of action is for a few people to >> get >> > >>> together and produce an entirely new Wave codebase. We've tried, and >> > >>> failed with the codebase we have. >> > >>> >> > >>> Upayavira >> > >>> >> > >>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, at 08:25 AM, Adam John wrote: >> > >>>> Created a GitHub organization, added each of the available repos: >> > >>>> https://github.com/ApacheWave >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I think I invited everyone on this thread - however there are many >> > >> others >> > >>>> on the list. >> > >>>> All are welcome. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Loss of Apache incubator status is significant as it means also >> > >>>> organizational loss, tools lost, and would effectively put a nail in >> > the >> > >>>> coffin for the project. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> WebCMS, Jira, Jenkins, and Travis are all valuable tools, and part >> of >> > >>>> Incubator status. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Quality code review (thanks, vega and wisebaldone etc) and an >> > >> established >> > >>>> process for the inclusion of new contributions by people familiar >> with >> > >>>> existing approaches and the work in progress... all of this is >> > >>>> significant. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> The people on this list - and even the list itself - both a service >> > and >> > >>>> an >> > >>>> organization that would be a significant loss in any transition... >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I think the safety of the incubator is important, for these reasons >> > and >> > >>>> more; and there needs to be improved communication, planning and >> > >>>> coordination... here again, just my opinion. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> AJ >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Adam John >> > >>>> (914) 623-8433 >> > >>>> Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn >> > >>>> <http://mradamjohn.com/> >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> The best future for Wave at Apache would, I think be to start an >> > >>>>> entirely new project at GitHub, and implement a Wave system that >> > >> people >> > >>>>> can actually understand. Once that gains traction, come back to the >> > >>>>> Incubator and ask to resurrect Apache Wave with that new codebase. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> The current codebase seems to be simply too complex for people to >> be >> > >>>>> able to pick up. The idea stands as a good one, but the code is >> just >> > >> too >> > >>>>> complex. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Upayavira >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 09:58 PM, Taylor Fahlman wrote: >> > >>>>>> I've been a reader of this list for a while. I am another one of >> the >> > >>>>>> people >> > >>>>>> who would love to contribute, but literally have no idea where to >> > >> start. >> > >>>>>> I >> > >>>>>> really think that if the code was divided a bit more it'd be >> easier >> > >> to >> > >>>>>> contribute, because I want to see this project keep going. It >> > >> really does >> > >>>>>> have a lot of potential in the current climate of silo-ed >> > >> communication >> > >>>>>> systems. An easy docker image would really help too. >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:54 PM Thomas Wrobel < >> darkfl...@gmail.com >> > >>> >> > >>>>>> wrote: >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> While the code will always be there in some form, is there any >> > >> real >> > >>>>>>> hope outside of Apache though? will it not just fizzle out? >> > >>>>>>> Apache provides somewhat needed pressure, structure and to some >> > >> extent >> > >>>>>>> even prestige. >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> While retirement is understandable necessity for things without >> > >>>>>>> progress, its nevertheless sad for a project with such >> > >> potential. Is >> > >>>>>>> it possible to put a call out for developers? a last warning? a >> > >>>>>>> advert? something beyond this list? >> > >>>>>>> I have no idea what form it would take though. I am so ignorant >> > >> with >> > >>>>>>> big projects, both socially and structurally. Theres tools out >> > >> there >> > >>>>>>> supposed to help motivate and organised (www.teamily.com) dont >> > >> know >> > >>>>>>> how effectively they are though. >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> It just all seems such a waste for wave to die, its death marking >> > >> a >> > >>>>>>> little lost hope for the open web to recover some ground from the >> > >>>>>>> closed hubs that dominate today. >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> -- >> > >>>>>>> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. >> > >>>>>>> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story >> > >> generator. >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> On 30 August 2016 at 21:41, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >> > >>>>>>>> Michael, >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> As I said earlier in this thread, retirement means the closure >> > >> of an >> > >>>>>>>> "apache" community. The code is already open source. So long as >> > >> the >> > >>>>>>>> trademark and the Apache License V2 on the code are respected, >> > >> as >> > >>>>> now, >> > >>>>>>>> anyone is free to do what they like with the code. >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> Thus, if someone (or someones) wanted to move it to Github, >> > >> that'd be >> > >>>>>>>> fine. I'm sure Apache wouldn't object to them using the name >> > >> "Wave" >> > >>>>> in >> > >>>>>>>> some form. >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> Upayavira >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 08:54 PM, Michael MacFadden wrote: >> > >>>>>>>>> Yuri, >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> Being a mostly silent participant at this point. I would tend >> > >> to >> > >>>>> agree >> > >>>>>>>>> with you. I think however, we should provide a “what next” >> > >>>>> option. So >> > >>>>>>>>> for example, people might be more willing to retire the >> > >> project if >> > >>>>> they >> > >>>>>>>>> knew for example we could move to github and still allow >> > >> people to >> > >>>>>>>>> contribute and develop if they see fit. >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> ~Michael >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> On 8/30/16, 11:52 AM, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> After some thought I hate to agree, that at current levels >> > >> of >> > >>>>>>>>> participation >> > >>>>>>>>> the only rational choice is to decide to retire as we are >> > >> just >> > >>>>>>>>> wasting >> > >>>>>>>>> Apache Foundation resources without any real hope of >> > >> graduating. >> > >>>>>>>>> Moreover, there were a few active projects based on Apache >> > >> Wave >> > >>>>> that >> > >>>>>>>>> felt >> > >>>>>>>>> little motivation to contribute back actively. I think >> > >> this is >> > >>>>>>>>> because they >> > >>>>>>>>> found little need in Apache Foundation resources, while >> > >>>>> contributing >> > >>>>>>>>> back >> > >>>>>>>>> required certain effort to comply with Apache rules. >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> I think we should hold a retirement vote and either recruit >> > >>>>>>>>> sufficient >> > >>>>>>>>> number of supporters willing and able actively participate >> > >>>>>>>>> immediately, or >> > >>>>>>>>> retire. >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:13 PM Jonathan Leong < >> > >>>>> jon.le...@gmail.com >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 < >> > >>>>> a...@sterlingsolved.com> >> > >>>>>>> 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" < >> > >> zmy...@gmail.com> >> > >>>>>>> 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" < >> > >>>>> darkfl...@gmail.com> >> > >>>>>>> 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. >> > >> >> > >>
