Joseph, Can you clarify what you mean by "proper TP2 types".
~Michael On 6/12/13 6:22 PM, "Joseph Gentle" <jose...@gmail.com> wrote: >Regardless of where the code goes, as I've said we should redesign the >OT system using proper TP2 types. This will enable us to build a >working federation protocol thats better anyway. I also think we >should separate out the OT types into a library, and make the system >capable of hosting different kinds of data. > >I don't think it makes sense to prototype that inside the WIAB >codebase. Lets iterate somewhere else. > >Once we have a working, federating TP2 OT container prototype, the >question is whether we should port the rest of WIAB's features to the >prototype or transplant the better federation algorithms into the >current WIAB codebase. Long term, we want multiple implementations >anyway for interoperability. > >There's a lot of opinions kicking around here considering that only >two people (Ali and Yuri) have contributed any code to WIAB in the >last 3 months[1]. And it sounds like Ali wants to delete a bunch of >the crap in WIAB and put it there. > >I much prefer writing javascript over java. What do you guys think >about dropping GWT and slowly porting the client to native JS? It >sounds like we want to keep the current code base anyway but separate >out the client code. Maybe once we have a prototype working, I should >start porting the client side java into nice, clean javascript. >Because GWT compiles to JS anyway, we can do this incrementally. I'd >like to do the prototype in JS or Coffee anyway, so we'll start this >process with a JS version of the new wave OT data type and go from >there. > >-J > >[1] https://github.com/apache/wave/commits/trunk > >On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Michael MacFadden ><michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Wavers. >> >> It is a very positive sign that the Wave project has seen increase >>activity >> in recent weeks. However, recent conversations point to the fact that >>we >> are at a decision point with Apache Wave. >> >> History >> ------- >> >> Google donated quite a bit of code to Apache for the Wave project. It >>is >> somewhat functional and is what the community is using to drive towards >>a >> release. However, the current community has little expedience with the >>code >> base. We didn't designed it and in many cases we don't understand it. >> >> As many have pointed out the code base is 1) Not easy to develop, 2) >>Hard to >> learn, 3) and not modularized between the client and server. These >>issues >> are hampering WiaB's adoption. >> >> Several people have suggested rewriting the codebase to separate the >>server >> and client and to greatly simplify the architecture. >> >> >> >> I think as a community we need to decide what we want to do. I have put >> forth three options which I would like the community to comment on. >> >> >> 1) Keep the current code base and just push ahead. >> >> Pros: >> ----- >> - We have a functional codebase that we evolve over time. >> - Potentially graduate sooner. >> >> Cons: >> ----- >> - Hard to get new developers excited about working with the code base. >> - Poetnetially slows the evolution of a scalable architecture that >>delivers >> what the community is asking for. >> >> >> 2) Ditch the current code base and start new. >> >> Pros: >> ----- >> - We can design something that meets the community needs. >> - We can simply the design from the beginning. >> >> Cons: >> ----- >> - We are very close to a release, this approach would set back future >> releases. >> >> >> 3) Keep the current code base AND start a new one. >> >> Pros: >> ----- >> - Can keep driving through the apache process. >> - We still have a working product. >> - We can start the redesign now. >> >> Cons: >> ----- >> - We barely have enough developers to maintain the current codebase. >> - If interest in the new codebase takes off, existing codebase would >> atrophy. >> >> >> Comments please. Thanks. >> >> ~Michael >> >>
