On Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 06:08 AM, Vivien Nicolas wrote: > Actually Francisco keeps complaining that there is not enough people > pissing on Service Worker ware, nor the Virtual list. Having more > feedbacks to understand why a particular library does not fit your use > case is great. Having patches to make it fit your use case is awesome. > But in general those libraries are open to discussions. So, your "a-la- > carte" wish, is basically what Francisco says since the beginning!
To be clear, I agree: Everyone has been very open to discussion and as an FxOS engineer I have not felt pressured to formally adopt NGA for the sake of NGA. If things continue like this, we're in great shape. If we all mail the mailing list a little bit more, we're in even better shape. My specific concern is a combination of nitpicking on Justin's specific phrasing of "follow" and that Wilfred's root message in this thread and his follow-ups seem to very explicitly be a prescriptive "everybody adopt NGA for the sake of NGA" which is a change from this. > This answer will likely contradict a bit the "a-la-carte" point and > the feeling that any app owner can do whatever it wants, when it wants > - or when it feels it is time. To clarify, I'm not suggesting module owners should get to be dictators of a fiefdom and should work on what suits their whim. All of the aspects of NGA are meant to address different problems we may encounter. I think it makes sense for product/UX/foxfooders/engineers to agree on the biggest problems in apps and prioritize them. For example: "Check out this profile, your app is unresponsive during normal usage because of too much main-thread work and we need to move things to a worker ASAP" is a great reason to do an overdue FE/BE worker split. "All the apps need to be on NGA" is not. "I was trying to figure out how I could create a tablet version of this screen without forking the app, and I couldn't because the view logic and application is too entangled" is likewise a great reason to focus on solutions to that problem. Other internals issues that impact potential contributors are also important, and this is a place where arguments for consistency should definitely be considered with the trade-offs. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding the original intent of the thread. If the idea is that that the NGA group will help identify specific user/developer/contributor pain points in apps and specific NGA solutions and will talk with the relevant parties (product, US, engineering, etc.) about priorities and trade-offs, then that is awesome. If we're talking about prioritizing checking a bunch of boxes for the sake of checking a bunch of boxes, I'm concerned, and I think that may be the concern of others as well. Andrew
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
