Your year seems to be off, github thinks you did everything in 2012. But good to see progress anyway :)
On 31 May 2013 09:23, Paulo Pires <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, protoc must be version 2.4.1. > > On May 31, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Paulo Pires <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Right now, I have this https://github.com/pires/wave > > > > I'll be merging latest changes during the day, but this is enough for > you to fiddle with. > > > > Cheers, > > PP > > > > On May 30, 2013, at 5:51 PM, John Blossom <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> PP, > >> > >> Great comments, I agree that brilliance without maintainability can be > >> risky. We need both. > >> > >> Here's hoping that we can set the right BHAGs with the right metrics and > >> messaging that will excite the world as much as we're excited. One step > at > >> a time, but I think that we're getting there. > >> > >> Many thanks, > >> > >> John > >> On May 30, 2013 11:59 AM, "Paulo Pires" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> See inline. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> PP > >>> > >>> On May 30, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Michael MacFadden < > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In my humble opinion we need: > >>>> > >>>> 1) A vision and marketing to attract people. It's hard to attract > >>> coders > >>>> if they don't know what they are coding. > >>> > >>> Forget node.js or any other "world-changer-wannabe" frameworks. As > Michael > >>> states, most developers don't understand (or are even scared of) this > >>> project architecture/structure. Fixing this would be a great start! > >>> > >>>> 2) We need a road map. > >>> > >>> I'd start with reorganizing code and simplifying the learning-curve for > >>> developers. Without developers, there's no product! > >>> > >>>> 3) We need a design. > >>> > >>> Important in the long-term. > >>> > >>>> 4) Then we need coders. > >>> > >>> Yes, yes, yes! > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Mainly we need coders to help with the release. Potentially finish > off > >>>> the migration to Maven. Then we need to start splitting the client > and > >>>> server (along with designing the protocols as we have discussed). > >>> > >>> Maven integration kept going (privately) and I have most, if not all of > >>> the code updated to the last commit. > >>> > >>> Thing is that Michael prepared a discussion because of simple but very > >>> important things like renaming packages and module structure and there > was > >>> little to no feedback from the community. This was more than enough > for (at > >>> least) me to think there was no common interest in what me and Michael > were > >>> doing and therefore I stopped. > >>> > >>>> Perhaps > >>>> then we redesign the UI, or maybe simply making it more flashy. > Maybe we > >>>> focus on a mobile client. Not sure. > >>>> > >>>> ~Michael > >>>> > >>>> On 5/30/13 4:15 AM, "John Blossom" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Interesting remarks so far from everyone, thanks very much, keep them > >>>>> coming. I see others coming in. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here are some thoughts regarding your thoughts: > >>>>> > >>>>> - There seems to be a commitment to get a release out. If that's a > >>>>> near-term objective, then good, let's allow people to have pride in > >>> their > >>>>> work and to have a complete Wave 1.0 kit. If it's a "someday" goal, > then > >>>>> I'd suggest that we need to think about how best we can get > resources to > >>>>> move more towards the vision that I have outlined in my presentation > >>> deck, > >>>>> assuming that there's consensus that it be refined into a concrete > >>> roadmap > >>>>> and powerful pitch deck. My personal concern at this point is not > "ship > >>>>> it." My personal concern is to make Wave awesome and powerful as > soon as > >>>>> possible using every resource available, using those currently > committed > >>>>> and those yet to be committed. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Resources are an issue. So is funding, as a corollary. Both > respond to > >>>>> the right vision for the marketplace. I feel pretty confident that > with > >>>>> some refinement, what is captured in the presentation is > funding-worthy > >>>>> and > >>>>> will attract funding. However, I am concerned about branding issues > and > >>>>> program management - people putting their money down will want > effective > >>>>> results in a meaningful timeframe, because competitive pressures > don't > >>>>> sleep. > >>>>> > >>>>> - I am willing to put my reputation and efforts into being a > committer > >>> for > >>>>> Apache Wave, if a) there is a strong consensus that the presentation > is > >>>>> the > >>>>> basis for forming an effective short-term and long-term roadmap for > >>> Wave, > >>>>> b) my role as an initial fund-raiser, marketer, product manager and > >>> brand > >>>>> developer as a committer is acceptable, c) if we can get agreement on > >>> the > >>>>> right branding and brand management that will be appropriate for Wave > >>>>> being > >>>>> successful commercially, and d) there is agreement that this will > >>> require > >>>>> not just some initial code funding but a framework that will ensure > some > >>>>> level of ongoing support for committers. > >>>>> > >>>>> - I am not a coder of any substance anymore, but I designed, coded > and > >>>>> managed coders on Unix-based systems for realtime applications in the > >>>>> financial industry and have developed and hacked in many Web sites as > >>> well > >>>>> as little projects like monkeying around with Arduino. I have spent > most > >>>>> of > >>>>> my career in strategic marketing and product management for content > and > >>>>> technology products such as Wave. I have spoken globally on visionary > >>>>> content and technology topics, I have a very good base of social > media > >>>>> followers, I have been quoted in the mainstream press often and I > have > >>>>> appeared on television news shows. Often technology people put me in > the > >>>>> non-tech box and often non-tech people put me in the tech box. I > don't > >>>>> care. I have always worked at the intersection of content, technology > >>> and > >>>>> people, so as long as the right thing gets done, you can call me > >>> whatever > >>>>> you want. That's what you'd get, no more, no less. > >>>>> > >>>>> - I want Wave to succeed. You want Wave to succeed. Others want Wave > to > >>>>> succeed, and a growing number are taking interest in what has been > >>> started > >>>>> in this process by me and others. That's what branding, funding, > >>>>> committers > >>>>> and cooperation are all about - success. Sometimes that means that > >>>>> everyone, including me, puts their own investment aside and tries to > do > >>>>> the > >>>>> right thing. That's a part of the ASF spirit, I know. But I don't > want > >>>>> success by accident. I want success by design. > >>>>> > >>>>> So yes, we need committers. For what? > >>>>> > >>>>> Solve for x. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> John Blossom > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On May 30, 2013 5:55 AM, "Christian Grobmeier" <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Bruno Gonzalez <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> I agree, IMO efforts should be directed at getting more man power. > >>>>>> Sadly, > >>>>>>> ideas are mostly useless if there's no hands that will transform > them > >>>>>> into > >>>>>>> actual code. I don't know... a solid business plan for a > kickstarter, > >>>>>> some > >>>>>>> advertising magic that will attract developers to devote their time > >>>>>> for > >>>>>>> free, convince the public to donate copious amounts of money to the > >>>>>> project > >>>>>>> (this was attempted by the now-offline fundwiab > >>>>>>> <http://www.fundwiab.com/> initiative, > >>>>>>> but it only managed to collect maybe 20 hours worth of developer > time; > >>>>>> too > >>>>>>> little to do any medium sized task), etc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As Upayavira mentioned, getting a release out is crucial - its an > >>>>>> important psychological hurdle. Having a release is also motivating > >>>>>> for others to maybe contribute. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That said, one needs to deal with the man power a project has. There > >>>>>> is now a John around with lot of ideas. While some might argue you > >>>>>> need more coders, why are you not building up some marketing-fu > >>>>>> together with John? He seems to be a good writer and very > passionate. > >>>>>> Maybe you folks should set up a blog (blogs.apache.org?), utilize > G+ > >>>>>> and Twitter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As reminder: in ASF world, not only people who write code can > become a > >>>>>> project committer. Everybody who is "committed to the project" and > >>>>>> does things, is able to become a committer. This includes marketing > >>>>>> work, blog posting, helping with translations, answering user > >>>>>> questions on mailing lists etc.. In Apache OpenOffice, a few people > do > >>>>>> not know what a shell is and have heard of Java just from the press. > >>>>>> But they do an incredible job with helping users, writing docs, > >>>>>> testing and contributing to ideas. Hence, they become committers > too. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What I want to say: yes, you need more coders. But don't miss a > chance > >>>>>> to get people involved who are not coding. They might become very > >>>>>> valuable community members + committers with the tons of other tasks > >>>>>> necessary with Wave. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>> Christian > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Angus Turner < > [email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Nothing about it not being appropriate, everything about having > the > >>>>>> man > >>>>>>>> power. Right now it's hard enough to maintain the code we've got. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I personally would rather wave was written in a 'nice' language > like > >>>>>> JS > >>>>>> or > >>>>>>>> Python, but right now it's not worth the effort. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> Angus Turner > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Blossom < > [email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Looking through some documentation on Wave-derived products, I am > >>>>>> seeing > >>>>>>>>> that there is some good use of Node.JS coding for server-side > >>>>>> functions. > >>>>>>>>> Why would it not be appropriate to replace some or all of the > >>>>>> demo-model > >>>>>>>>> code from Google on the server side with a light and powerful > >>>>>> language > >>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>>> as this? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Good analysis of Node performance at: > >>>>>> http://nodejs.org/jsconf2010.pdf > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> John > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Saludos, > >>>>>>> Bruno González > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > >>>>>>> http://www.stenyak.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de > >>>>>> https://www.timeandbill.de > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
