I do agree with Justin and Marcus. NGA is the hat of a set of recommendations for building better apps for Firefox OS. Unfortunately it is easy to use the "NGA" shortcut when devs are implementing any of these recommendations. This can be confusing and drives to miscommunication.
As for me using the NGA shortcut is fine when we speak about an app being in process of transitioning to the full NGA recommendation. But we absolutely need to be more specific when it's about commitment and delivery. In Whistler, When I committed Engineering to split BE/FE, I paid attention to not commit to "NGA" but specifically to "split BE/FE for SMS, Music and Contacts as part of NGA". We should definitely do a better job for defining glossary, documenting NGA and all the recommendation that will make an app "NGA" compliant. In addition to that I would love to see some documentation, best practices and recipes for using bridge.js, split views, use ServiceWorkerWare etc.. coming from the developers who were engaged in Music, SMS and Contact road to NGA. They actually did more that "separation of view logic", they all explored different side of the NGA recommendations and their feedback would be valuable to everyone. --- David Scravaglieri Mozilla - Firefox OS On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Marcus Cavanaugh <[email protected]> wrote: > Spark, Ignite, NGA, Mulet, PVT... code names work well only if there's an > easy way to discover what each name stands for. I'd prefer that we use less > opaque names, but I think a more accessible glossary and wiki would be > equally useful. Google had a centralized user-editable glossary of terms; > we might benefit from something similar as well, e.g. have acronyms in > Bugzilla fields automatically hover-link toward the glossary page. > > On Nov 2, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Justin D'Arcangelo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think we should just do a better job of documenting and explaining what > NGA is. It would be nice to have a central place to go where people can > learn about the app architecture as well as get links to all the related JS > libraries we have developed like ServiceWorkerWare, Bridge.js, etc. > > Also, if contributors are more aware of NGA, it is actually clearer and > less verbose to just say “NGA” versus “separation of view logic”, which is > actually somewhat vague. Pretty much every good app architecture involves > “separation of view logic” and the migration to NGA is much more than just > separating view logic. Another way to look at it is, if we were migrating > apps to an existing 3rd-party framework like Angular or React, we would > likely be referencing the framework/architecture by its name when we talk > about it. > > I just think if we had better documentation to call out what NGA is, this > would be a non-issue. Perhaps once we get together to recap the NGA work > from v2.5, we can talk about putting together a simple GH-pages website > with documentation, libraries and a downloadable skeleton project for > building new “NGA” apps. > > -Justin > > > On Nov 2, 2015, at 8:16 PM, Tim Guan-tin Chien <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I would like to know what David and Vivien think. > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Candice Serran <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Agreed...the team working on the entire NGA program will be conducting a >> retrospective and plan forward next week (Nov 9-Nov 13). We'll make sure >> specific actions regarding the overall program are explicitly communicated >> and broken out. >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Wilfred Mathanaraj <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> That would definitely help internally as well - plus it would valuable >>> for us to understand all the outstanding tasks and plan ahead for the >>> completion of work. >>> >>> Wilfred >>> >>> --- >>> FxOS Product Management >>> Mozilla Corp., UK >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2 Nov 2015, at 12:00, Michael Henretty <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I suggest that we stop using the term NGA when talking about feature >>> work in Gaia. The problem is that there are many facets to NGA, and using >>> that term only confuses what we are actually working on. So in the future, >>> instead of saying that we landed NGA in the SMS app for instance, let's say >>> "we landed separation of view logic and threads.js in SMS." This is much >>> more contributor friendly, and even helps core developers understand what >>> is truly being worked on. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Michael >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev-fxos mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev-fxos mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Candice Serran >> Sr Mgr - FxOS Engineering Pgm Mgmt >> [email protected] >> irc: cserran >> mobile: 303.588.1101 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-fxos mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >> >> > _______________________________________________ > dev-fxos mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos > > > _______________________________________________ > dev-fxos mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos > >
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
