incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Wave Future Options
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:30:42 GMT
PP,

I agree.  I think we need to look holistically at the code base.  I
honestly don't know what the best approach is.  It sounds easy to say,
let's just modularize it.  I am not sure the current code base makes that
possible in any meaningful way.  The code is so abstract and intertwined,
it may take MUCH longer to modularize the code than it would to start over.

On the other hand, I am not sure that starting over is feasible either.  I
really don't know.

~Michael

On 6/12/13 11:26 AM, "Paulo Pires" <pjpires@ubiwhere.com> wrote:

>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.macfadden@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
>> 
>> 
>



Mime
View raw message