As mentioned the information is scattered across at least 3-4 other pages, especially a mandatory comparision that shows almost every available alternative to DeviceMap.,
Those benchmarks are also old as you can see from the pictures. They are still representative for the W3C DDR Simple API implementation and being based on the last ever "open" WURFL snapshot, it may be hard to find that (except what you rescued on GitHub) so the publicly visible WURFL version is also as it was in 2011 and unless they provide transparent benchmarks, there is nothing to compare out in the open any more. At least Eberhard spoke about some "fantastic performance results" being up to 100x faster than WURFL but so fsar I never saw any figures, so that's no proper replacement and simply saying it on a slide would not be better than existing statements about WURFL. As it should be obvious, the "wall" metaphor simply came with the whole "DDR" CI also found on other pages. More than happy to include other pages either based on sustainable benchmarks we can reproduce or ideas and reference clients towards the JSON/2.0 direction. I expect ACE 2015 will update its template, at least for the date on the front page compared to http://de.slideshare.net/keilw/apache-devicemap-apachecon-europe-2014 There were "filler" pages in that template I'd certainly use again if it is provided in a similar way. The "History" section seems quite suitable to some pages like "What was contributed" and especially compared to the Nov '14 ones in Budapest, what was "Outlook" there e.g. graduating is now already "History", too ;-) On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Werner Keil <werner.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ...As offered earlier, everyone, whether they can make it to my session > in > > Budapest or not is welcome to propose new/changed pages based on the most > > recent slides from Rome: > > http://de.slideshare.net/keilw/apache-devicemap-codemotion-roma-2015 ... > > As I have already stated, I find the wurfl bashing in there > unnecessary, especially with the war/wall metaphor. > > Showing facts about other projects is fine (like your benchmarks, > provided that they are reproducible) but bashing for the sake of it is > not how Apache projects are supposed to operate. > > -Bertrand >
