I’d sum it up by saying that the project is on life support - but it could pull through.
There’s still a release in the pipeline, which hopefully we can get out pretty soon. From that point I think we should revisit carrying on as-is, introducing some radical breaking changes or the attic. > On 2 May 2016, at 11:33, Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > > On 2/05/2016 8:59 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >> The next River report to the board is due May 11th. I am supposed to keep >> the board informed of the state of the community. With that in mind, I would >> welcome input from anyone with an opinion on the matter. > > Well it's not looking too healthy, although it appears we still have enough > pmc members to vote (4 active), we've lost a committer recently, interest in > the project is tapering off. > > Most of the code in River is aged between 12 and 18 years old, while the > architectural design principles employed are sound, parts of the api are > showing their age. > > River is tied to Java and is currently deployed in server back end, private > networks. There may be some hope in IoT, however at present we don't support > Android and have limited scope outside of Java. River is also tied to Java > serialization, which has fallen out of favour for newer protocols in recent > times. > > Although some steps have been made toward modularising River, the monolothic > build is hampering development efforts: > Modules allow a development campaign to focus on one module, allowing earlier > completion, followed by review and release of an updated module. The large > monolothic codebase, prolongs a campain, (eg fixing race conditions) and > makes it difficult for other developers to keep up with changes, resulting in > generation of our own FUD and makes it difficult to release often. > > On the plus side our suite of tests are quite comprehensive. > > Regards, > > Peter. >
