I think that bringing swellrt into Apache will be beneficial for both projects. Apache will gain active developers and momentum while swellrt will get the additional recognition. Moreover, swellrt developers can become Apache Wave committers - I think Pablo is already committer. I think that the API approach is sensible, and there will be no issues for the broad Apache wave community on accepting this direction.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:22 PM Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 September 2016 at 17:04, Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have been developing a fork of Apache Wave for 2 years (swellrt.org) I > > can say I have very good knowledge of wave's server and gwt client, I > have > > made changes in almost all the layers of Wave with more or less impact. > > IMHO to start a wave-like project from scratch is an extremly large and > > complex project. All we tend to think to build something from scratch is > > easier than understand something already done. > > > > The only thing I can offer to the community is to help other developers > to > > APIfy the exiting code, removing the GWT UI parts, and transform the rest > > into a Javascript API in order to use any frontend framework. > > Thats a huge "only"! > > > > Also I was asked to contribute the whole SwellRT API to Wave, this is > > another option I am happy to do if the community finds ok, but also I > would > > need help from more developers. > > > At this point surely this should be seriously considered.? > If your willing to do that, maybe the best result for effort is > everyone now helping get your work into the main wave project. > > This seems significant enough to me to even offer wave a stay of > execution from Apache, provided we can agree this is the way forward? > Your work seems to solve a few problems slowing down progress, while > simultaneously being also being a fairly big contribution in itself. > > > Group; may I suggest this option be seriously discussed first before > settling on migration/retirement? > > > > > > > > > > 2016-09-01 8:35 GMT+02:00 Ed - 0x1b, Inc. <w...@0x1b.com>: > > > >> Adam - I don't know if this will post to the Apache list, but > >> ApacheWave will have problems with the use of the word Apache - call > >> it something different - like StandingWave - you get the idea - I > >> think Github is a great host, especially if you can get the > >> <newname>.io domain etc > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Adam John <a...@sterlingsolved.com> > wrote: > >> > Created a GitHub organization, added each of the available repos: > >> > https://github.com/ApacheWave > >> > > >> > I think I invited everyone on this thread - however there are many > others > >> > on the list. > >> > All are welcome. > >> > > >> > Loss of Apache incubator status is significant as it means also > >> > organizational loss, tools lost, and would effectively put a nail in > the > >> > coffin for the project. > >> > > >> > WebCMS, Jira, Jenkins, and Travis are all valuable tools, and part of > >> > Incubator status. > >> > > >> > Quality code review (thanks, vega and wisebaldone etc) and an > established > >> > process for the inclusion of new contributions by people familiar with > >> > existing approaches and the work in progress... all of this is > >> significant. > >> > > >> > The people on this list - and even the list itself - both a service > and > >> an > >> > organization that would be a significant loss in any transition... > >> > > >> > I think the safety of the incubator is important, for these reasons > and > >> > more; and there needs to be improved communication, planning and > >> > coordination... here again, just my opinion. > >> > > >> > AJ > >> > > >> > Adam John > >> > (914) 623-8433 > >> > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn < > >> http://mradamjohn.com/> > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> >> The best future for Wave at Apache would, I think be to start an > >> >> entirely new project at GitHub, and implement a Wave system that > people > >> >> can actually understand. Once that gains traction, come back to the > >> >> Incubator and ask to resurrect Apache Wave with that new codebase. > >> >> > >> >> The current codebase seems to be simply too complex for people to be > >> >> able to pick up. The idea stands as a good one, but the code is just > too > >> >> complex. > >> >> > >> >> Upayavira > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 09:58 PM, Taylor Fahlman wrote: > >> >> > I've been a reader of this list for a while. I am another one of > the > >> >> > people > >> >> > who would love to contribute, but literally have no idea where to > >> start. > >> >> > I > >> >> > really think that if the code was divided a bit more it'd be > easier to > >> >> > contribute, because I want to see this project keep going. It > really > >> does > >> >> > have a lot of potential in the current climate of silo-ed > >> communication > >> >> > systems. An easy docker image would really help too. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:54 PM Thomas Wrobel < > darkfl...@gmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > While the code will always be there in some form, is there any > real > >> >> > > hope outside of Apache though? will it not just fizzle out? > >> >> > > Apache provides somewhat needed pressure, structure and to some > >> extent > >> >> > > even prestige. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > While retirement is understandable necessity for things without > >> >> > > progress, its nevertheless sad for a project with such potential. > >> Is > >> >> > > it possible to put a call out for developers? a last warning? a > >> >> > > advert? something beyond this list? > >> >> > > I have no idea what form it would take though. I am so ignorant > with > >> >> > > big projects, both socially and structurally. Theres tools out > there > >> >> > > supposed to help motivate and organised (www.teamily.com) dont > know > >> >> > > how effectively they are though. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > It just all seems such a waste for wave to die, its death > marking a > >> >> > > little lost hope for the open web to recover some ground from the > >> >> > > closed hubs that dominate today. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > -- > >> >> > > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > >> >> > > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story > generator. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On 30 August 2016 at 21:41, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> > > > Michael, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > As I said earlier in this thread, retirement means the closure > of > >> an > >> >> > > > "apache" community. The code is already open source. So long as > >> the > >> >> > > > trademark and the Apache License V2 on the code are respected, > as > >> >> now, > >> >> > > > anyone is free to do what they like with the code. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Thus, if someone (or someones) wanted to move it to Github, > >> that'd be > >> >> > > > fine. I'm sure Apache wouldn't object to them using the name > >> "Wave" > >> >> in > >> >> > > > some form. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Upayavira > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, at 08:54 PM, Michael MacFadden wrote: > >> >> > > >> Yuri, > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> Being a mostly silent participant at this point. I would > tend to > >> >> agree > >> >> > > >> with you. I think however, we should provide a “what next” > >> >> option. So > >> >> > > >> for example, people might be more willing to retire the > project > >> if > >> >> they > >> >> > > >> knew for example we could move to github and still allow > people > >> to > >> >> > > >> contribute and develop if they see fit. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> ~Michael > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> On 8/30/16, 11:52 AM, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> After some thought I hate to agree, that at current > levels of > >> >> > > >> participation > >> >> > > >> the only rational choice is to decide to retire as we are > >> just > >> >> > > >> wasting > >> >> > > >> Apache Foundation resources without any real hope of > >> graduating. > >> >> > > >> Moreover, there were a few active projects based on Apache > >> Wave > >> >> that > >> >> > > >> felt > >> >> > > >> little motivation to contribute back actively. I think > this > >> is > >> >> > > >> because they > >> >> > > >> found little need in Apache Foundation resources, while > >> >> contributing > >> >> > > >> back > >> >> > > >> required certain effort to comply with Apache rules. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> I think we should hold a retirement vote and either > recruit > >> >> > > >> sufficient > >> >> > > >> number of supporters willing and able actively participate > >> >> > > >> immediately, or > >> >> > > >> retire. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:13 PM Jonathan Leong < > >> >> jon.le...@gmail.com > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > I would hate to see this project retire. > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > Adam you bring up good points. I can get the ball > rolling > >> with > >> >> > > the Docker > >> >> > > >> > image. I'll see what I can get done over the next week > or > >> so. > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > -Jonathan Leong > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Adam John < > >> >> a...@sterlingsolved.com> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > I have to weigh in and say that I agree that the bar > here > >> >> was > >> >> > > set high > >> >> > > >> > from > >> >> > > >> > > several perspectives. > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > I'm currently evaluating what components of this > project > >> >> can be > >> >> > > most > >> >> > > >> > useful > >> >> > > >> > > for incorporation into 2 separate projects. If either > one > >> >> moves > >> >> > > forward > >> >> > > >> > in > >> >> > > >> > > the next 6 months, there will be more developers > actively > >> >> > > involved here. > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > That said, I've watched some of the transition videos > >> from > >> >> > > Google folks > >> >> > > >> > and > >> >> > > >> > > read a lot of the docs, reviewed code and worked on > >> >> > > implementing this > >> >> > > >> > > project for myself. It is daunting and would benefit > >> >> overall > >> >> > > from 2 > >> >> > > >> > > significant - imho critical - updates; > >> >> > > >> > > (1) the Product itself needs real changes - like the > >> >> concept of > >> >> > > bots > >> >> > > >> > needs > >> >> > > >> > > pulled out from core terminology and revamped as a > more > >> >> current > >> >> > > common > >> >> > > >> > > concept / ie agents. There needs to be better > >> organization > >> >> of > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > >> > Product > >> >> > > >> > > from concept to contribution. This is not to diminish > >> the > >> >> vast > >> >> > > resources > >> >> > > >> > > present, only to highlight an improvement area. > >> >> > > >> > > (2) the Architecture needs serious review and > revision to > >> >> > > figure out how > >> >> > > >> > > best to leverage other projects and allow focus on the > >> >> specific > >> >> > > benefits > >> >> > > >> > > this project enables. The technology stack overall > needs > >> >> better > >> >> > > >> > separation > >> >> > > >> > > at least from a newcomers perspective. > >> >> > > >> > > As a third factor, and #1 on my list for adoption is > >> rolling > >> >> > > docker > >> >> > > >> > images > >> >> > > >> > > for the project. This is essential in my humble > opinion > >> to > >> >> > > allow new > >> >> > > >> > > developers to focus on the pieces they feel most > >> equipped to > >> >> > > contribute > >> >> > > >> > > comfortably... > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > I don't know how the major changes I am suggesting get > >> >> > > introduced and > >> >> > > >> > > discussed in much more detail. I'm hoping that > perhaps I > >> >> lieue > >> >> > > of a > >> >> > > >> > > potentially dismissive email "vote" ... Maybe a > virtual > >> >> > > conference would > >> >> > > >> > be > >> >> > > >> > > of interest? I would hope that the participants of > such > >> a > >> >> > > convention > >> >> > > >> > would > >> >> > > >> > > be the core of a nascent rebirth. Yes I am > volunteering > >> to > >> >> > > help take > >> >> > > >> > this > >> >> > > >> > > on if there is interest... > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > Thanks, > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > Adam John > >> >> > > >> > > (914) 623-8433 > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Aug 30, 2016 12:43 PM, "Zachary Yaro" < > >> zmy...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > I am in a similar boat. I have front-end development > >> >> skills, > >> >> > > but I > >> >> > > >> > > struggle to fully understand the back-end > functionality > >> or > >> >> begin > >> >> > > >> > separating > >> >> > > >> > > the client from the server. > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > Zachary Yaro > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Aug 30, 2016 11:51 AM, "Thomas Wrobel" < > >> >> darkfl...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > I have tried on 3 separate occasions to understand > the > >> >> > > server. Its > >> >> > > >> > > > simply not in my skillset and I don't have the time > to > >> >> learn. > >> >> > > I don't > >> >> > > >> > > > wish to sound arrogant there, theres learning needed > >> for > >> >> > > anything of > >> >> > > >> > > > course. But its too much investment - I want to > apply > >> >> skills > >> >> > > that I > >> >> > > >> > > > already have. Last time I tried to get into wave > >> >> development > >> >> > > (which > >> >> > > >> > > > was I admit a few years back) it took me 3 days to > even > >> >> > > compile the > >> >> > > >> > > > server. Which is frustrating for someone that just > >> wants > >> >> to > >> >> > > work on a > >> >> > > >> > > > client. > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > So I am certainly not waiting for permission, I am > >> waiting > >> >> > > for a > >> >> > > >> > > > prerequisite of a server/client split. I > understand I > >> can > >> >> > > neither > >> >> > > >> > > > demand or expect such a thing. Developers on a > project > >> >> like > >> >> > > this just > >> >> > > >> > > > have to jump in on what they feel like. Nothing can > >> >> really be > >> >> > > expected > >> >> > > >> > > > and I accept that. > >> >> > > >> > > > I simply am informing there's "lesser" developers > like > >> me > >> >> > > that could > >> >> > > >> > > > work on bits if certain other things happen. > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >
