My concern is not for Wave, it is for SwellRT. The last thing I'd want is them (I don't know how many of them there are) to move over to Apache, only to find out that the match with Apache isn't sufficient, and Wave closes down anyway. I want to be sure we can avoid that eventuality, and the best way I can see to accomplish that, assuming Pablo is okay with it, is for anyone interested in SwellRT development moving to Apache, is to go and join the SwellRT community. Go start contributing to the code where it is now. Then we can form a realistic view of what we are going to bring into Apache before we do it.
Upayavira On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, at 10:00 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > I am sorry I didn't make the meeting, glade to see it was productive. > However, I am curious though why there is questions still as to if > SwellRT should be merged with wave. > > Wave development at apache is nearly dead. > Doing nothing and it will have to retire. No one has proposed a 3rd > option that I am aware of. > So in terms of community engagement, not seeing a downside. > > If theres technical downsides, thats another mater. But not aware > anyones raised any yet. > From what I have seen possibly my only concern is the API to > communicate to the server is just in javascript - we would > eventually need alternatives if we want to allow native iOS and > Android clients. > > > "activity similar to this starts brewing and > then it all dies down in a few months" > > > True. Seen it many times. > Maybe too much discussion with too little actual discussions resulting > in anything changing. > Cant a date be set, a vote be taken, then either import SwellRT or not? > > > > -- > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. > > > On 6 October 2016 at 18:21, Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Adam for clarifying the questions. > > > > Also I agree with Upayavira, the primary discussion it might be more about > > "ideas" and the community's "engagement" with them. After that, tech > > aspects would come. > > > > So, in this regard I would like to share some thoughts about SwellRT as a > > product... > > > > a) Where SwellRT fit in the market? Competitors? > > > > SwellRT current vision is closer to products like Firebase, Meteor and > > Realm. > > They are new breed of frameworks/platforms to write apps. They provide as > > key feature, real-time data storage with simple document-based data models. > > Their aim is to simplify and speed up web/app development. And of course, > > they allow to build real-time collaboration features easily. > > > > Of course, these projects are matured, but they still have pros and cons. > > What it seems clear to me is the trend: to develop heavier apps/webapps > > (because nowadays devices have a lot of computing power and it means just > > coding for one system) and lighter backends providing common "services" > > (notifications, storage, auth...). > > > > > > > > b) What Wave/SwellRT's tech could offer in this market as innovation? > > Wave/SwellRT could compete with features like: > > > > - Open Source and JVM world: I guess there is still a part of the world > > happy to see a Java friendly framework, despite it works for Web (but > > hopefully for android/iOS). > > > > - Simpler API: with sugar syntax, for example, in SwellRT we are working in > > a JS syntax just based in mutable objects. Also with API concepts easy to > > understand: objects and participants. > > > > - Full-featured collaborative writing: Wave was designed for text editing, > > whereas these new frameworks are focused in JSON. For example, annotations > > is a cool feature not easy to provide I guess. Also the Wave's text editor > > is very good yet. > > > > - Federation: it is the hardest selling point for developers in general > > because it doesn't provide benefits in the short term. However, it is the > > entrance to innovative things like cross-app interoperability, organic > > scalability... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-10-05 23:47 GMT+02:00 Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk>: > > > >> I want to see a proposal regarding importing SwellRT that gives me > >> confidence that bringing SwellRT into Wave will actually lead to an > >> active project. > >> > >> A way this could be achieved *before* bringing SwellRT would be if > >> everyone who is interested in contributing headed over to SwellRT, and > >> started contributing over there. Then, we'd be bringing both code and > >> community into Apache, which would give me far more confidence than just > >> importing code but with no confidence that anyone is actually going to > >> do anything with it. > >> > >> Upayavira > >> > >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, at 10:03 PM, Adam John wrote: > >> > Pablo, a lot of great information in this slide deck. I hope others have > >> > a > >> > chance to review as well. Outstanding work. > >> > > >> > Price, very thoughtful responses. I agree with the overall conclusion - > >> > SwellRT should be brought into Wave. > >> > > >> > I like the idea of moving the SwellRT fork in to replace the current > >> > branch > >> > of Wave development because it moves the project reasonably forward and > >> > makes sense overall. It does not seem anything current would be lost in > >> > that move. It seems like we have everything to gain. However, there > >> > might > >> > be work in progress that is affected. > >> > > >> > It would be great if contributors on the project took a look and shared > >> > some thoughts. > >> > > >> > Q3) For current contributors; are you in favor of bringing the fork home? > >> > > >> > - > >> > Great attendance at our last meeting, and familiar ground was covered. > >> > (agenda > >> > and notes > >> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11j_WQGYAtDlN8Wqx8jJglPpw6tJznvMGf > >> dLOvQu96i0/edit>) > >> > We're largely covering the next steps in recent emails. > >> > > >> > If the group agrees, that we should bring SwellRT into Apache Wave, then > >> > there needs to be a proposal drafted. > >> > > >> > Q4) Does anyone have interest, experience or desire to help with this > >> > task? We do not expect to start until after the next meeting. > >> > > >> > - > >> > Perhaps 2-3 weeks is time enough to consider the questions posed? > >> > I'd like to plan our next steps; > >> > I suggest *10/26 as the next discussion* - based on consensus in the list > >> > of course. > >> > > >> > The goal of the next meeting will be to provide a chance to address any > >> > questions regarding bringing the projects together. Perhaps this could > >> > be > >> > a technically deeper discussion. > >> > > >> > Q5) Does anyone have interest in a standing co-work session? Especially > >> > important would be current contributors. I think this could be a good > >> > way > >> > for some on the list that have stalled or reached impasse to begin to > >> > make > >> > progress in helping out. > >> > > >> > Thanks, everyone for your work and efforts. I believe that if each of us > >> > does just a little bit over the next few weeks we will continue to see > >> > the > >> > progress we need in this project. > >> > > >> > Adam John > >> > (914) 623-8433 > >> > Google+ <http://google.com/+AdamJohn1> | LinkedIn > >> > <http://mradamjohn.com/> > >> > > >> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks for your answer Price, > >> > > > >> > > I guess we should not delay this discussion... > >> > > > >> > > I'd happy to run another call if you think it can move things forward. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2016-10-01 18:40 GMT+02:00 Price Clark <gpwcl...@gmail.com>: > >> > > > >> > > > Pablo, thanks for the presentation. > >> > > > > >> > > > While my qualifications to answer this are 0 getting to listen to > >> > > > Upayavira talk this week (the last Apache mentor if I'm not mistaken) > >> > > make > >> > > > me feel the answers to 1 and 2 are easy to answer. > >> > > > > >> > > > 1.) Upayavira communicated very fervently that there just isn't > >> enough > >> > > > oomph in wave's development. Every year around the time that the > >> > > retirement > >> > > > conversation is brought up, activity similar to this starts brewing > >> and > >> > > > then it all dies down in a few months. From this perspective "Does > >> > > SwellRT > >> > > > tackle current Wave problems?" The answer is unequivocally yes, > >> SwellRT > >> > > is > >> > > > a more actively maintained fork of Wave and given the slowing/slowed > >> pace > >> > > > of Wave *a merge with SwellRT is likely the only way to save this > >> > > project*. > >> > > > > >> > > > 2.) I would also like to bring up another point Upayavira made, > >> > > > "Communities are built around good ideas and bad code." Running with > >> > > that I > >> > > > thing that good ideas attract tinkerers and 'people with ideas' that > >> > > could > >> > > > eventually become 'contributors with ideas'. In some senses SwellRT > >> > > > splinters Apache Wave in a way that developers on this mailing list > >> have > >> > > > been alluding to for a while. The client side code is not well > >> understood > >> > > > and is definitely in the way of the server. SwellRT has a more > >> general > >> > > goal > >> > > > of supplying a server that is capable of powering a front-end like > >> the > >> > > > original vision of google wave. This means that merging with SwellRT > >> > > would > >> > > > force a separation of the client and server and allow for people with > >> > > > interests in either a front or back end to work in tandem. This seems > >> > > like > >> > > > an ingenious way to attract more people; anyone with an interest in > >> the > >> > > > backend technology OR a way to use said technology in an application > >> > > could > >> > > > be a potential contributor. Unless I'm mistaken it seems like SwellRT > >> > > > offers a set of features that could be classified as a superset of > >> Wave's > >> > > > features. So, it seems like most or all of SwellRT would be at home > >> in > >> > > > Wave. Pablo also reasonably stated that he'd prefer to work in one > >> > > project. > >> > > > > >> > > > As for me, as soon as a direction is clear I would love to talk to > >> > > > someone actively maintaining/writing code so I can help them > >> contribute > >> > > to > >> > > > whichever code survives in whatever way possible. > >> > > > > >> > > > >>
