On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Sutherland < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 06:08 AM, Vivien Nicolas wrote: > > Actually Francisco keeps complaining that there is not enough people > pissing on Service Worker ware, nor the Virtual list. Having more feedbacks > to understand why a particular library does not fit your use case is great. > Having patches to make it fit your use case is awesome. But in general > those libraries are open to discussions. > So, your "a-la-carte" wish, is basically what Francisco says since the > beginning! > > > To be clear, I agree: Everyone has been very open to discussion and as an > FxOS engineer I have not felt pressured to formally adopt NGA for the sake > of NGA. If things continue like this, we're in great shape. If we all > mail the mailing list a little bit more, we're in even better shape. > > My specific concern is a combination of nitpicking on Justin's specific > phrasing of "follow" and that Wilfred's root message in this thread and his > follow-ups seem to very explicitly be a prescriptive "everybody adopt NGA > for the sake of NGA" which is a change from this. > I think Wilfred point is: it should be easy to replace any views. For us at Mozilla, as the shape of the future product is not defined, for partners as they may want to customize things, for third party as they may want to have fun. Now, I don't think Wilfred or others are really pushing for one specific technical solution. But so far 'NGA' is likely what they have been told will help for some of those specific issues, as well as some others. Then it sounds logical to them that they want to move forward, trying to break the architecture proposal into multiple parts that can be incrementally worked on while trying to define a product. > > This answer will likely contradict a bit the "a-la-carte" point and the > feeling that any app owner can do whatever it wants, when it wants - or > when it feels it is time. > > > To clarify, I'm not suggesting module owners should get to be dictators of > a fiefdom and should work on what suits their whim. All of the aspects of > NGA are meant to address different problems we may encounter. I think it > makes sense for product/UX/foxfooders/engineers to agree on the biggest > problems in apps and prioritize them. > > For example: "Check out this profile, your app is unresponsive during > normal usage because of too much main-thread work and we need to move > things to a worker ASAP" is a great reason to do an overdue FE/BE worker > split. "All the apps need to be on NGA" is not. > > "I was trying to figure out how I could create a tablet version of this > screen without forking the app, and I couldn't because the view logic and > application is too entangled" is likewise a great reason to focus on > solutions to that problem. Other internals issues that impact potential > contributors are also important, and this is a place where arguments for > consistency should definitely be considered with the trade-offs. > > Those are great examples. I bet all of the app authors have a few lessons learned in the past years, and some stuffs they have been struggling with. This is some of those that we should solve with some architectural changes. Usually one solution does not fit all, and there will likely be some differences into apps architecture in the future, but at least it would be great to have a high level architecture common to most apps. One of the things the proposal is trying to do is to draw some white boxes. Authors can freely address their specific issues into them. Those boxes are delimited via platform primitives such as compartments, threads or processes. > > Hopefully I'm misunderstanding the original intent of the thread. If the > idea is that that the NGA group will help identify specific > user/developer/contributor pain points in apps and specific NGA solutions > and will talk with the relevant parties (product, US, engineering, etc.) > about priorities and trade-offs, then that is awesome. If we're talking > about prioritizing checking a bunch of boxes for the sake of checking a > bunch of boxes, I'm concerned, and I think that may be the concern of > others as well. > We are talking about moving forward in an uncertain environment, and to offer a flexible enough Gaia so it can fit into multiple variants in a quick, stable and performant way. Thanks for raising your concerns thought. I'm pretty sure you are not alone to feel this way. Vivien. > > Andrew >
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
