Thanks @Thomas. Sure @Upayavira, go ahead, import the project and try it! If someone needs direct support, please use gitter's chat channel https://gitter.im/P2Pvalue/swellrt Also I keep offer to run a video call for deeper explanation of any aspect.
2016-10-22 15:12 GMT+02:00 Upayavira <[email protected]>: > This is all good to hear. > > There's two things here - with SwellRT's permission, we can import their > code into our Git. We can start using it. Then, we can see whether we > get sufficient momentum for SwellRT to want to continue their > development over here. There's quite a few ways we can work this... > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, at 10:49 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > > Well, I am not sure SwellRTs committer base, or how many will switch > > over to Apache. But I also see no harm in Apache wavers, either > > committers commentators or lurkers, contributing to SwellRT right now. > > I > > > > As someone with zero experience of SwellRT, and only limited > > Javascript skills, I found it very easy setting up the server and > > writing a simple test app. > > The CollaborativeObject model seems very intuitive, and the docs guide > > the process well. > > I haven't looked at the server-side code beyond getting it to run, but > > so far everything's been pretty positive. Most things that put me off > > before arnt there, so hopefully others that try it will feel the same. > > There's no GWT, which I am sure many will celebrate - although for me > > personally I'll probably end up writing a GWT wrapper for the SwellRT > > client javascipt so I can use it myself ;) > > > > -- > > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > > > > > On 20 October 2016 at 18:31, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > These are great suggestions Thomas. What I'm suggesting is that I want > > > to avoid porting SwellRT over to Apache, only for it to fail here due > to > > > lack of activity, when it was actually fine where it was. > > > > > > We need to make sure, out of respect for SwellRT, that it can gain a > > > level of traction that makes it worth the effort porting it to Apache. > > > > > > The suggested steps you outline below are a great part of that. > > > > > > Upayavira > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, at 02:55 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > > >> Any consensus then on how to move forward? > > >> I've signed up and started looking around swellrt. Only been able to > > >> ""debug"" the setup instructions so far, but I hope to contribute > > >> more. > > >> > > >> If the agreed logic is "SwellRT needs to show more activity before it > > >> can become the main apache branch", then I feel everyone in this list > > >> should at least be signing onto Gitter > > >> (https://gitter.im/P2Pvalue/swellrt) and taking a look around the > > >> project/related projects to see if theres anything that takes their > > >> fancy. > > >> > > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt > > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-android > > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/angular-swellrt > > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-pad > > >> https://github.com/P2Pvalue/swellrt-java > > >> > > >> Theres probably a broad enough range that most people can contribute > > >> something. > > >> -- > > >> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > > >> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > >> > > >> > > >> On 15 October 2016 at 20:52, Bradley D. Thornton < > [email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > This is the link below that I cannot seem to locate. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 8/30/2016 11:25 PM, 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> > > >> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 < > > >> >>> > > >> >>> [email protected] > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> 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 < > > >> >>> > > >> >>> [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. > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > --- > > >> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > >> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > >> > >
