The 28th should work for me. I'm definitely for breaking apart the backend and frontend. A clean separation via an API layer will make iterating and frontend experimentation much easier.
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016, 9:44 AM Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can participate for either date. But the 28th works better for me, and > if it works better for Yuri, I would think that would be ideal also. > > > On 9/3/16, 9:29 AM, "Adam John" <a...@sterlingsolved.com> wrote: > > @thomas .. I agree that what Pablo has offered is both significant and > seems to resolve a number of items that have been established as > important. > > @yuri .. also agree with these points. > > @pablo I think we should adjust the date - earlier is probably not a > good > idea as it gives most people very short notice about a call on a "short > week" in the US, and on the week that many schools start... So, while > not > preferred to push the date out 2 weeks I think it is the better choice. > > Any thoughts on the date change and meeting info below? > > Old Date: > Wednesday September 14 at 10:00am EST > New Date: > *Wednesday September 28 at 10:00am EST* > > Agenda (WIP): > * Discuss option to bring swellrt into wave - expected result will be > "yes" > or "no" if possible > * Establish priorities/plan - reference The Wavy Future document (link > < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnhcupFtReZyq5Y5QheIbYFO2epEhXGucNZE04r_oA4/edit > > > ) > * Set next steps - including the next full group meeting/discussion > Please add/change this agenda as you see fit. > > Requested attendees: > 1. Greg Cochard > 2. Jonathan Leong > 3. Price Clark > 4. Thomas Wrobel > 5. Evan Hughes > 7. Pablo Ojanguren > 6. *Everyone on this list!* > > Thanks, folks. > > AJ > > Adam John > (914) 623-8433 > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn < > http://mradamjohn.com/> > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:21 AM, 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. > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > >
