BTW I haven't forgotten this email, I plan on answering ASAP :) Florent
2010/3/11 Nick Burch <[email protected]>: > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Florian Müller wrote: >> >> I've created a Wiki page [1] to plan out the meeting. Please add your name >> to the participants list if you plan to come. > > I should be able to attend. I'd be planning to act as a mentor not a coder, > so helping ensure things are done according to the Apache Way, as well as > trying to keep the rest of the community in the loop with discussions. > > With that in mind, it would be good if we could do a bit of planning before > hand. (It's going to be a little tough for people not at the meeting to > follow and comment, so we need to give them the best chance we can!) This > would be in addition to working out the agenda. > > For most of the codebase, in discrete chunks, I guess we'll need to decide > between the options of: > * Keep the two versions in parallel > * Go for the Chemistry version > * Go for the OpenCMIS version > * Merge the two into a new API > > One thing that would seem to be helpful is if we could identify a couple of > small areas of both the API, and work up in advance what the latter 3 options > would entail. So, for example > * Document the Chemistry API, what its strengths are, what its weaknesses > are, and what work there'd be for OpenCMIS users to switch to it > * Document the OpenCMIS API, what its strengths are, what its weaknesses > are, and what work there'd be for Chemistry users to switch to it > * Try to write a combined API, and detail why it's better than the two > original ones, and why it isn't > > Everyone can then chip in with if they feel the documentation is fair, and if > they feel the combined API has been done correctly. This will give us a start > on reviewing, and give everyone something to reference in later discussions. > That gives us the option to discuss in person a given bit of the API, and for > example: > * In person discussions on FooBar API > * Decision that the Chemistry API is better in the case of FooBar, and > that a migration from code calling the OpenCMIS api to switch would be > easy > * Document the idea on the wiki > * Report to the list that "FooBar API seems quite like the case in > example #1, and as such we're planning to keep the Chemistry Version > as-is" > * Overnight someone reviews and spots an area where one bit the OpenCMIS > API should be kept and merged in > * Re-discuss in person, and then commit the change to the FooBar API > * Discussions have been helpful, the community is kept in the loop, and > community contributions have been very valuable > > My fear is that without a few worked examples for everyone to review and > discuss in advance, it's going to be too hard to capture and share the output > of 3 hours of meetings and whiteboard scribblings in a way that people not > there can comment on. I think we need some shared points of reference to > point to. > > Does that make sense to everyone? If so, does anyone have some ideas for a > couple of (small!) areas of the code where there's duplication that we can > work through the different options in advance? > > Nick -- Florent Guillaume, Director of R&D, Nuxeo Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM) http://www.nuxeo.com http://www.nuxeo.org +33 1 40 33 79 87
