Well, i think we have to vote for something like this: 1) Leave only 'dataservice' package 2) Leave both 3) Discuss a little more about this
I say +1 for #1 G.- On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't really support having both versions around in Shindig forever > because I think it would confuse new users deciding which one to choose and > would be more work than its worth for this project to maintain. (2 sets of > bugs, patches, mail threads, design decisions, etc) However, anyone can > build an OpenSocial container in whatever way they like - Shindig is just > one impl choice (of course we hope to be the best :) > > That being said, it looks like the general consensus here is moving to > option #2 (the "dataservice" package). > Should we move forward with this? Or do we want to discuss this more? > > David - do you think this accurately reflects this thread? You stated that > you would continue working on this code. Does everyone here think that > David > moving the code to another repository is the right choice? Or should we go > with Ian's option and just leave both be? > > Thanks for all of the comments! > > - Cassie > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Ian Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > David, > > I am sorry that I didn't reply to the your message on Friday, I went > > offline for a few days, just got back online today. > > > > Firstly I should apologize, I didn't want to pass any comment on the > > contribution of any part of the implementation, because I think that both > > are extremely valuable, and represent many hours of thought and work. > > > > I also think that Abdera is a really strong framework that is ideally > > suited to this type of work, especially in the Atom area, and will be > > invaluable to a full blown SNS which needs to support more than just OS. > > > > What I was trying to say, ineptly, was that I felt we needed to be > careful > > that any bindings inside Shindig don't prevent others already using a > > version of Abdera (or any other framework) from continuing to use it. > Having > > options allows that to happen. > > > > So to rephrase my original opinion, both approaches would be great and > > would allow users of shindig to decide which one they wanted to use > provided > > a) there is resource in the shindig community to support both, and > > b) they can easily be backed off the same underlying service API's > > > > It sounds like you are willing to do some of that work... so you get my > > vote (not that I should have one for triggering such a long thread.) #2 > also > > gets my vote because it generates choice and has resource prepared to > work > > on it. > > All IMHO, > > > > Sorry everyone, I'll remember to wait to let others confirm what I am > > thinking next time. > > Ian > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Jul 2008, at 02:46, David Primmer wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> There's a pretty good recent analogy for this issue, which was the > Linux > >>> task scheduler. Two very capable implementations were developed, but > the > >>> one > >>> that was chosen was done so because the people who worked on it were > >>> highly > >>> dedicated to the task. > >>> > >>> I think the same criteria needs to be applied here. For people who are > in > >>> favor of the 'new' code, are you willing to accept the burden of > >>> maintenance, patches, and support? Are you going to continue doing that > >>> even > >>> if you change employers? for people in favor of the abdera code -- I > ask > >>> the > >>> same. > >>> > >>> That's really what this boils down to. If both implementations get the > >>> job > >>> done correctly, then the decision for which one to use is simply a > matter > >>> of > >>> determining who's going to ensure success of the component. If we only > >>> have > >>> one person who's going to work on one side and 10 people on the other, > >>> then > >>> the choice is obvious. > >>> > >> > >> Another eminently reasonable point from Kevin. Although I don't think > >> you can always get a promise for future development in any open source > >> project, we do have commitments from some pretty big companies to work > >> on this. I really hope that the amount of contributions outside of > >> Google employees increases going forward in the java api server. It's > >> disappointingly lopsided so far, but maybe the OS Foundation will make > >> it safer for others to devote valuable developer hours to it. I'm > >> still motivated to work on an Abdera-based approach, and will probably > >> carry it on in some other repository. My interest has always been more > >> in the data portability possibilities that are appearing via AtomPub, > >> as well as the extensibility of the OpenSocial framework. It has a lot > >> of potential as a general purpose development platform and there's a > >> lot of cutting-edge stuff in there that will be useful to more than > >> just social networks. > >> > >> davep > >> > > > > >
