Hi, three things: PROPOSAL. REASON. FIRST STEP.
PROPOSAL: ================= I would like to normalize all the content inside Matterhorn. I would like to make it 2NF or 3NF. Of course I am not thinking about having a proposal of SQL database tables, I am thinking about normalizing the content as if it was a SQL. For example: -right now each workflow contains a copy of MediaPackage. -each episode contains two(!) copies of MediaPackage. -each workflow and episode contains a copy of serie. -each published index contains a copy of serie. So.. once you change title of a serie, to make it affect a published episode (published mediapackage -- who knows what is correct!?!) you have to retract it and re-publish. REASONs: ================= 1. Matterhorn is growing fast. There is a bunch of people who know it well, but those people cannot take care (or can they?) of implementing everything by themselves? How do you imagine new developers joining the project, that is not documented. They are working in hurry introducing new bugs, and at some point instead of guiding, and drawing a path for the project - they will end up being too busy or just tired. [am I right? I may be terrible wrong here] 2. Documenting the project doubles it's value, because --- other people can keep on developing it. 3. People like me can either spend 6 months investigating every part of the code, and then start adding something or read about it on wiki pages, and then try to force some kind of idea, or may learn about the part that they are interested in in a week. I can put up some examples here, but I would not like them to be a part of this thread. 4. Saying what will work how, and designing it is usually faster than implementing it. So: adding episodes tab, and it's functionality can take a week or two on a paper, get approved --and then jobs can be assigned and everything will be working fine. 5. It will enable real C&A. For example: I have changed a title of an episode, ... but it's still the same in Media Module. Bug or design ? Serious bug? Minor bug - that will be handled in 6 months, and ruing all existing installations. Now serious C&A is not possible. 6. I cannot imagine people seriously developing Matterhorn without this kind of stuff. Auto generated spec is very useful for developers but -- you will never know if something is missing there, without looking at from a distance. I am not talking about details (rest parameters), I am talking about drawing a patch for next 5 or 6 years... Once we will figure out what is an episode, what is a workflow, we will be able to think of distributing stuff to youtube. Otherwise? What do you want to distribute? -Mediapackage? -Episode? -Workflow? :-) Yes. It's working. Something is working. Somebody published something to youtube. But how many design bugs was introduced. None. Because implemented code is a design. Once I will change the ways workflows are displayed on a Recordings page, I will change entire design on Matterhorn, since there is no design. FIRST STEP. ====================== I have to do it myself, propose it to the community. However I would appreciate help: (1) Explain me what needs to be gone to have idea of developing this spec approved. - I can start getting an approval. (2) Vote and/or share your thoughts on it. (3) I do not want to duplicate work. Let me know where to look for parts of it that already exist, if there are any - but I haven't found none. (4) Help needed - I need people that I will have to consult. What I want to do it dig into Matterhorn code, figure out what is Mediapackage Episode etc... write it down, send it to few people, make it official. Thanks! -Pawel _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
