+1 for option 3. The source code will remain available for historical reference. I think the large amount of dead code in the project is confusing and should be trimmed when possible. The console client is not on anyones radar, so as we made changes I see it just falling more and more behind.
On Aug 21, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Yuri Z wrote: > Oops, I forgot to mention option 3 which is also preferred and the easiest > one: > Option 3: To remove the whole IndexWave and ConsoleClient related code > without fixing it. > The suggested patch is actually related to the option 3, not to the option > 2. > > 2011/8/21 Yuri Z <[email protected]> > >> Hello >> The WIAB code currently contains a lot of deprecated and broken code: the >> IndexWave functionality in Web client was replaced by an RPC calls to a >> search service. The change was also dictated by the need to get rid of >> legacy client-server protocol on one hand, and to replace the IndexWave with >> more advanced search functionality for the Web client on the other hand. >> Long story short the IndexWave code makes it almost impossible to >> re-structure the WIAB code for improved persistence, reduced memory >> footprint and improved/indexed search functionality. So, it's only logical >> to clean up the code and remove all IndexWave related classes. However, the >> ConsoleClient (which AFAIK is currently broken anyway) still uses IndexWave, >> so it means that the ConsoleClient should be removed along with IndexWave. >> The alternatives are: >> 1. To comment out all IndexWave related code that interferes with efforts >> to improve the WIAB and leave the broken code in the repository. >> 2. To remove the IndexWave related and fix the ConsoleClient to work with >> new search functionality (which would also include future efforts to keep it >> up to date as the WIAB code evolves). >> >> Taking in account the current scarcity of resources in the WIAB project, it >> seems like the option 2 is unrealistic, so IMHO, we should focus on the Web >> Client and remove the obsolete/broken code. >> The patch for the suggested change can be found at: >> http://codereview.waveprotocol.org/613001 >> >> Comments/suggestions are welcome. >> Yuri >> >> >>
