Alex, as I said, I'll be merging latest changes (held at a private repo) later. On May 31, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Alexander Harkness <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your year seems to be off, github thinks you did everything in 2012. > > But good to see progress anyway :) > > On 31 May 2013 09:23, Paulo Pires <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Also, protoc must be version 2.4.1. >> >> On May 31, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Paulo Pires <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Right now, I have this https://github.com/pires/wave >>> >>> I'll be merging latest changes during the day, but this is enough for >> you to fiddle with. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> PP >>> >>> On May 30, 2013, at 5:51 PM, John Blossom <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> PP, >>>> >>>> Great comments, I agree that brilliance without maintainability can be >>>> risky. We need both. >>>> >>>> Here's hoping that we can set the right BHAGs with the right metrics and >>>> messaging that will excite the world as much as we're excited. One step >> at >>>> a time, but I think that we're getting there. >>>> >>>> Many thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> On May 30, 2013 11:59 AM, "Paulo Pires" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> See inline. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> PP >>>>> >>>>> On May 30, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Michael MacFadden < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In my humble opinion we need: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) A vision and marketing to attract people. It's hard to attract >>>>> coders >>>>>> if they don't know what they are coding. >>>>> >>>>> Forget node.js or any other "world-changer-wannabe" frameworks. As >> Michael >>>>> states, most developers don't understand (or are even scared of) this >>>>> project architecture/structure. Fixing this would be a great start! >>>>> >>>>>> 2) We need a road map. >>>>> >>>>> I'd start with reorganizing code and simplifying the learning-curve for >>>>> developers. Without developers, there's no product! >>>>> >>>>>> 3) We need a design. >>>>> >>>>> Important in the long-term. >>>>> >>>>>> 4) Then we need coders. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, yes, yes! >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mainly we need coders to help with the release. Potentially finish >> off >>>>>> the migration to Maven. Then we need to start splitting the client >> and >>>>>> server (along with designing the protocols as we have discussed). >>>>> >>>>> Maven integration kept going (privately) and I have most, if not all of >>>>> the code updated to the last commit. >>>>> >>>>> Thing is that Michael prepared a discussion because of simple but very >>>>> important things like renaming packages and module structure and there >> was >>>>> little to no feedback from the community. This was more than enough >> for (at >>>>> least) me to think there was no common interest in what me and Michael >> were >>>>> doing and therefore I stopped. >>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps >>>>>> then we redesign the UI, or maybe simply making it more flashy. >> Maybe we >>>>>> focus on a mobile client. Not sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> ~Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/30/13 4:15 AM, "John Blossom" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting remarks so far from everyone, thanks very much, keep them >>>>>>> coming. I see others coming in. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are some thoughts regarding your thoughts: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - There seems to be a commitment to get a release out. If that's a >>>>>>> near-term objective, then good, let's allow people to have pride in >>>>> their >>>>>>> work and to have a complete Wave 1.0 kit. If it's a "someday" goal, >> then >>>>>>> I'd suggest that we need to think about how best we can get >> resources to >>>>>>> move more towards the vision that I have outlined in my presentation >>>>> deck, >>>>>>> assuming that there's consensus that it be refined into a concrete >>>>> roadmap >>>>>>> and powerful pitch deck. My personal concern at this point is not >> "ship >>>>>>> it." My personal concern is to make Wave awesome and powerful as >> soon as >>>>>>> possible using every resource available, using those currently >> committed >>>>>>> and those yet to be committed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Resources are an issue. So is funding, as a corollary. Both >> respond to >>>>>>> the right vision for the marketplace. I feel pretty confident that >> with >>>>>>> some refinement, what is captured in the presentation is >> funding-worthy >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> will attract funding. However, I am concerned about branding issues >> and >>>>>>> program management - people putting their money down will want >> effective >>>>>>> results in a meaningful timeframe, because competitive pressures >> don't >>>>>>> sleep. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - I am willing to put my reputation and efforts into being a >> committer >>>>> for >>>>>>> Apache Wave, if a) there is a strong consensus that the presentation >> is >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> basis for forming an effective short-term and long-term roadmap for >>>>> Wave, >>>>>>> b) my role as an initial fund-raiser, marketer, product manager and >>>>> brand >>>>>>> developer as a committer is acceptable, c) if we can get agreement on >>>>> the >>>>>>> right branding and brand management that will be appropriate for Wave >>>>>>> being >>>>>>> successful commercially, and d) there is agreement that this will >>>>> require >>>>>>> not just some initial code funding but a framework that will ensure >> some >>>>>>> level of ongoing support for committers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - I am not a coder of any substance anymore, but I designed, coded >> and >>>>>>> managed coders on Unix-based systems for realtime applications in the >>>>>>> financial industry and have developed and hacked in many Web sites as >>>>> well >>>>>>> as little projects like monkeying around with Arduino. I have spent >> most >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> my career in strategic marketing and product management for content >> and >>>>>>> technology products such as Wave. I have spoken globally on visionary >>>>>>> content and technology topics, I have a very good base of social >> media >>>>>>> followers, I have been quoted in the mainstream press often and I >> have >>>>>>> appeared on television news shows. Often technology people put me in >> the >>>>>>> non-tech box and often non-tech people put me in the tech box. I >> don't >>>>>>> care. I have always worked at the intersection of content, technology >>>>> and >>>>>>> people, so as long as the right thing gets done, you can call me >>>>> whatever >>>>>>> you want. That's what you'd get, no more, no less. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - I want Wave to succeed. You want Wave to succeed. Others want Wave >> to >>>>>>> succeed, and a growing number are taking interest in what has been >>>>> started >>>>>>> in this process by me and others. That's what branding, funding, >>>>>>> committers >>>>>>> and cooperation are all about - success. Sometimes that means that >>>>>>> everyone, including me, puts their own investment aside and tries to >> do >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> right thing. That's a part of the ASF spirit, I know. But I don't >> want >>>>>>> success by accident. I want success by design. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So yes, we need committers. For what? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Solve for x. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Blossom >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 30, 2013 5:55 AM, "Christian Grobmeier" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Bruno Gonzalez <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I agree, IMO efforts should be directed at getting more man power. >>>>>>>> Sadly, >>>>>>>>> ideas are mostly useless if there's no hands that will transform >> them >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> actual code. I don't know... a solid business plan for a >> kickstarter, >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> advertising magic that will attract developers to devote their time >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> free, convince the public to donate copious amounts of money to the >>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>> (this was attempted by the now-offline fundwiab >>>>>>>>> <http://www.fundwiab.com/> initiative, >>>>>>>>> but it only managed to collect maybe 20 hours worth of developer >> time; >>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>> little to do any medium sized task), etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As Upayavira mentioned, getting a release out is crucial - its an >>>>>>>> important psychological hurdle. Having a release is also motivating >>>>>>>> for others to maybe contribute. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That said, one needs to deal with the man power a project has. There >>>>>>>> is now a John around with lot of ideas. While some might argue you >>>>>>>> need more coders, why are you not building up some marketing-fu >>>>>>>> together with John? He seems to be a good writer and very >> passionate. >>>>>>>> Maybe you folks should set up a blog (blogs.apache.org?), utilize >> G+ >>>>>>>> and Twitter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As reminder: in ASF world, not only people who write code can >> become a >>>>>>>> project committer. Everybody who is "committed to the project" and >>>>>>>> does things, is able to become a committer. This includes marketing >>>>>>>> work, blog posting, helping with translations, answering user >>>>>>>> questions on mailing lists etc.. In Apache OpenOffice, a few people >> do >>>>>>>> not know what a shell is and have heard of Java just from the press. >>>>>>>> But they do an incredible job with helping users, writing docs, >>>>>>>> testing and contributing to ideas. Hence, they become committers >> too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I want to say: yes, you need more coders. But don't miss a >> chance >>>>>>>> to get people involved who are not coding. They might become very >>>>>>>> valuable community members + committers with the tons of other tasks >>>>>>>> necessary with Wave. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Angus Turner < >> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing about it not being appropriate, everything about having >> the >>>>>>>> man >>>>>>>>>> power. Right now it's hard enough to maintain the code we've got. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I personally would rather wave was written in a 'nice' language >> like >>>>>>>> JS >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> Python, but right now it's not worth the effort. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> Angus Turner >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Blossom < >> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Looking through some documentation on Wave-derived products, I am >>>>>>>> seeing >>>>>>>>>>> that there is some good use of Node.JS coding for server-side >>>>>>>> functions. >>>>>>>>>>> Why would it not be appropriate to replace some or all of the >>>>>>>> demo-model >>>>>>>>>>> code from Google on the server side with a light and powerful >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>> as this? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Good analysis of Node performance at: >>>>>>>> http://nodejs.org/jsconf2010.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Saludos, >>>>>>>>> Bruno González >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com >>>>>>>>> http://www.stenyak.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de >>>>>>>> https://www.timeandbill.de >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >>
