incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paulo Pires <>
Subject Re: NodeJS for Sever-Side Wave Code
Date Fri, 31 May 2013 08:23:31 GMT
Also, protoc must be version 2.4.1.

On May 31, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Paulo Pires <> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Right now, I have this
> I'll be merging latest changes during the day, but this is enough for you to fiddle with.
> Cheers,
> PP
> On May 30, 2013, at 5:51 PM, John Blossom <> wrote:
>> PP,
>> Great comments, I agree that brilliance without maintainability can be
>> risky. We need both.
>> Here's hoping that we can set the right BHAGs with the right metrics and
>> messaging that will excite the world as much as we're excited. One step at
>> a time, but I think that we're getting there.
>> Many thanks,
>> John
>> On May 30, 2013 11:59 AM, "Paulo Pires" <> wrote:
>>> See inline.
>>> Cheers,
>>> PP
>>> On May 30, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Michael MacFadden <
>>>> wrote:
>>>> In my humble opinion we need:
>>>> 1) A vision and marketing to attract people.  It's hard to attract
>>> coders
>>>> if they don't know what they are coding.
>>> Forget node.js or any other "world-changer-wannabe" frameworks. As Michael
>>> states, most developers don't understand (or are even scared of) this
>>> project architecture/structure. Fixing this would be a great start!
>>>> 2) We need a road map.
>>> I'd start with reorganizing code and simplifying the learning-curve for
>>> developers. Without developers, there's no product!
>>>> 3) We need a design.
>>> Important in the long-term.
>>>> 4) Then we need coders.
>>> Yes, yes, yes!
>>>> Mainly we need coders to help with the release.  Potentially finish off
>>>> the migration to Maven.  Then we need to start splitting the client and
>>>> server (along with designing the protocols as we have discussed).
>>> Maven integration kept going (privately) and I have most, if not all of
>>> the code updated to the last commit.
>>> Thing is that Michael prepared a discussion because of simple but very
>>> important things like renaming packages and module structure and there was
>>> little to no feedback from the community. This was more than enough for (at
>>> least) me to think there was no common interest in what me and Michael were
>>> doing and therefore I stopped.
>>>> Perhaps
>>>> then we redesign the UI, or maybe simply making it more flashy.  Maybe we
>>>> focus on a mobile client.  Not sure.
>>>> ~Michael
>>>> On 5/30/13 4:15 AM, "John Blossom" <> wrote:
>>>>> Interesting remarks so far from everyone, thanks very much, keep them
>>>>> coming. I see others coming in.
>>>>> Here are some thoughts regarding your thoughts:
>>>>> - There seems to be a commitment to get a release out. If that's a
>>>>> near-term objective, then good, let's allow people to have pride in
>>> their
>>>>> work and to have a complete Wave 1.0 kit. If it's a "someday" goal, then
>>>>> I'd suggest that we need to think about how best we can get resources
>>>>> move more towards the vision that I have outlined in my presentation
>>> deck,
>>>>> assuming that there's consensus that it be refined into a concrete
>>> roadmap
>>>>> and powerful pitch deck. My personal concern at this point is not "ship
>>>>> it." My personal concern is to make Wave awesome and powerful as soon
>>>>> possible using every resource available, using those currently committed
>>>>> and those yet to be committed.
>>>>> - Resources are an issue. So is funding, as a corollary. Both respond
>>>>> the right vision for the marketplace. I feel pretty confident that with
>>>>> some refinement, what is captured in the presentation is funding-worthy
>>>>> and
>>>>> will attract funding. However, I am concerned about branding issues and
>>>>> program management - people putting their money down will want effective
>>>>> results in a meaningful timeframe, because competitive pressures don't
>>>>> sleep.
>>>>> - I am willing to put my reputation and efforts into being a committer
>>> for
>>>>> Apache Wave, if a) there is a strong consensus that the presentation
>>>>> the
>>>>> basis for forming an effective short-term and long-term roadmap for
>>> Wave,
>>>>> b) my role as an initial fund-raiser, marketer, product manager and
>>> brand
>>>>> developer as a committer is acceptable, c) if we can get agreement on
>>> the
>>>>> right branding and brand management that will be appropriate for Wave
>>>>> being
>>>>> successful commercially, and d) there is agreement that this will
>>> require
>>>>> not just some initial code funding but a framework that will ensure some
>>>>> level of ongoing support for committers.
>>>>> - I am not a coder of any substance anymore, but I designed, coded and
>>>>> managed coders on Unix-based systems for realtime applications in the
>>>>> financial industry and have developed and hacked in many Web sites as
>>> well
>>>>> as little projects like monkeying around with Arduino. I have spent most
>>>>> of
>>>>> my career in strategic marketing and product management for content and
>>>>> technology products such as Wave. I have spoken globally on visionary
>>>>> content and technology topics, I have a very good base of social media
>>>>> followers, I have been quoted in the mainstream press often and I have
>>>>> appeared on television news shows. Often technology people put me in
>>>>> non-tech box and often non-tech people put me in the tech box. I don't
>>>>> care. I have always worked at the intersection of content, technology
>>> and
>>>>> people, so as long as the right thing gets done, you can call me
>>> whatever
>>>>> you want. That's what you'd get, no more, no less.
>>>>> - I want Wave to succeed. You want Wave to succeed. Others want Wave
>>>>> succeed, and a growing number are taking interest in what has been
>>> started
>>>>> in this process by me and others. That's what branding, funding,
>>>>> committers
>>>>> and cooperation are all about - success. Sometimes that means that
>>>>> everyone, including me, puts their own investment aside and tries to
>>>>> the
>>>>> right thing. That's a part of the ASF spirit, I know. But I don't want
>>>>> success by accident. I want success by design.
>>>>> So yes, we need committers. For what?
>>>>> Solve for x.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> John Blossom
>>>>> On May 30, 2013 5:55 AM, "Christian Grobmeier" <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Bruno Gonzalez <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree, IMO efforts should be directed at getting more man power.
>>>>>> Sadly,
>>>>>>> ideas are mostly useless if there's no hands that will transform
>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> actual code. I don't know... a solid business plan for a kickstarter,
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> advertising magic that will attract developers to devote their
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> free, convince the public to donate copious amounts of money
to the
>>>>>> project
>>>>>>> (this was attempted by the now-offline fundwiab
>>>>>>> <> initiative,
>>>>>>> but it only managed to collect maybe 20 hours worth of developer
>>>>>> too
>>>>>>> little to do any medium sized task), etc.
>>>>>> As Upayavira mentioned, getting a release out is crucial - its an
>>>>>> important psychological hurdle. Having a release is also motivating
>>>>>> for others to maybe contribute.
>>>>>> That said, one needs to deal with the man power a project has. There
>>>>>> is now a John around with lot of ideas. While some might argue you
>>>>>> need more coders, why are you not building up some marketing-fu
>>>>>> together with John? He seems to be a good writer and very passionate.
>>>>>> Maybe you folks should set up a blog (, utilize
>>>>>> and Twitter.
>>>>>> As reminder: in ASF world, not only people who write code can become
>>>>>> project committer. Everybody who is "committed to the project" and
>>>>>> does things, is able to become a committer. This includes marketing
>>>>>> work, blog posting, helping with translations, answering user
>>>>>> questions on mailing lists etc.. In Apache OpenOffice, a few people
>>>>>> not know what a shell is and have heard of Java just from the press.
>>>>>> But they do an incredible job with helping users, writing docs,
>>>>>> testing and contributing to ideas. Hence, they become committers
>>>>>> What I want to say: yes, you need more coders. But don't miss a chance
>>>>>> to get people involved who are not coding. They might become very
>>>>>> valuable community members + committers with the tons of other tasks
>>>>>> necessary with Wave.
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Angus Turner <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nothing about it not being appropriate, everything about
having the
>>>>>> man
>>>>>>>> power. Right now it's hard enough to maintain the code we've
>>>>>>>> I personally would rather wave was written in a 'nice' language
>>>>>> JS
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> Python, but right now it's not worth the effort.
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Angus Turner
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Blossom <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>> Looking through some documentation on Wave-derived products,
I am
>>>>>> seeing
>>>>>>>>> that there is some good use of Node.JS coding for server-side
>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>> Why would it not be appropriate to replace some or all
of the
>>>>>> demo-model
>>>>>>>>> code from Google on the server side with a light and
>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>> as this?
>>>>>>>>> Good analysis of Node performance at:
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback,
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Saludos,
>>>>>>>   Bruno González
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Jabber: stenyak AT
>>>>>> --

View raw message