Hi Paul,

Thanks for directing the discussion to the correct Zephyr mailing list. I did 
not know there was a users list.

It would be great if Linaro could work on ARM boards and also other areas of 
the JavaScript Runtime for Zephyr. I already talked with few Linaro people at 
Berlin Open IoT summit. 

The GitHub issues is now the correct and only way to indicate bugs and feature 
items. We are in the process of adding more infrastructure around the project. 
That is, CI, mailing lists and IRC. There are still few moving parts before we 
can have that available. So for now, let’s use the GitHub issues.


On 10/13/16, 10:53 PM, "Paul Sokolovsky" <paul.sokolov...@linaro.org> wrote:

    Hello Sakari,
    On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 08:39:14 +0000
    "Poussa, Sakari" <sakari.pou...@intel.com> wrote:
    > Hi Paul,
    > Glad to hear your positive thoughts about the project. We really want
    > to make this a community project and are totally open to external
    > contributions and collaborations. I just merged our first external
    > patch from you! I have already been talking with few people who would
    > like to contribute features to the project. This is a nice start.
    Thanks, and I would definitely be happy to contribute to the project,
    and help with FRM-K64F, and ARM targets in general, maintenance. Except
    that an original Linaro's plan was to work on IoT.js, so I appreciate
    the detailed answer below regarding it, that will help to align our
    planning/project management (I'm sure it will be useful for other
    parties too).
    I find the arguments below compelling - indeed, IoT.js design didn't
    seem like the simplest and the most lightweight. But then Zephyr.js
    lacks many features comparing to IoT.js, so would be nice to discuss
    future plans and prioritization of things to be added. I submitted
    couple of RFC/discussion like tickets to
    https://github.com/01org/zephyr.js/issues , but wonder if that's what
    you'd recommend for such topics (vs something like a mailing list, and
    which then? - as you can see, I cc:ed this thread to Zephyr users
    mailing list, IMHO it's the most appropriate one so far, short of
    creationg a dedicated one for Zephyr.js specifically).
    Thanks, and looking forward to seeing today's ELCE slides/presentation
    on Zephyr.js online (I didn't have a chance to visit). 
    > About the iot.js: We did evaluate and tried to use iot.js for our
    > project when we started. Below are the reasons why we decided to
    > create a new one instead of (re)using iot.js:
    > - Iot.js is written with C++. C++ is not well supported on Zephyr,
    > especially the new() method is not available.
    > - Iot.js contains lot of JavaScript code which adds size and
    > performance penalty to the runtime. We wanted to be as efficient as
    > possible and used only C code.
    > - Iot.js does not have modularity. You need to take all the features
    > even if you only use one API. IN our project, we analyze the .js
    > application and only build and link the APIs that app is using (both
    > runtime and zephyr)
    > - libtuv: the fork is not following the upstream and is/was missing
    > some key features like UDP (IIRC)
    > - We wanted to focus on one RTOS and make the project good there. We
    > may revisit this goal at some point in the future.
    > Based on the above, the decision was made to create one from scratch.
    > Sakari
    Best Regards,
    Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
    Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
    http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog

jerryscript-dev mailing list

Reply via email to