[dojo-contributors] dojo roadmap

Adam Peller peller at gmail.com
Thu May 14 12:51:28 EDT 2009


-1.  Far too aggressive.  I know I disagree with folks on this don't
see the benefit of migrating more into core or coupling more into the
release process.  I think we need to break things out.  For marketing
and practical reasons, we need a very tiny base or core and everything
else should be separate (we call them dojox subprojects, but if it
helps to call them plugins instead, so be it)  Just in the last couple
of days I've heard discussion about rewriting the grid, and also
discussion over whether the dojox cometd project is redundant with a
new codebase.  These were two of the candidates for migrating into our
main release.  As separate components, they can have a life of their
own, still under the Dojo license and CLA agreement, with their own
goals, release cycle, etc.

-Adam

2009/5/14 Tom Trenka <ttrenka at gmail.com>:
> I've been kicking around some ideas, and I think at this point I'd like to
> promote what many of you might consider to be radical changes.  Please bear
> with me on this and recognize that what I'm proposing here is meant to begin
> some real discussions...right now, I would be considering this proposal as a
> (fairly) major reorganization aimed at the 1.5 milestone release.  Probably
> most would rather consider it for 2.0 but since our release cycles tend to
> be pushed way out, I think it's reasonable to consider this for an earlier
> major milestone...
> 1.5: Promote DojoX to be a true first-class citizen in the Dojosphere.
> This may seem like an odd thing to say, but allow me to explain.  Currently,
> DojoX is used for all sorts of different purposes--for some things, it's a
> breeding ground for eventual migration; for some, it's a playground; for
> others, it's like a personal repo.
> I would like this to change.
> The goal here would be to couple DojoX releases with the Core (and not
> Dijit, I'll get to that), so that the two projects are considered congruent.
>  This means that the idea of trying to package individual projects in DojoX
> is no longer a necessity.
> In order for this to happen, I think we need to make the following changes,
> both directly to DojoX and also in the rules overseeing DojoX:
> 1. Migrate the pieces in DojoX that should be migrated.
> On my list of things here, the following should be migrated to Core:  gfx,
> dtl, portions of io, rpc and data; grid should be migrated to Dijit with all
> possible speed.
> 2. Make decisions on what current parts of DojoX should remain, as worthy
> parts of a core release.
> The criteria here is that whatever remains needs to have the following
> attributes:
> a. either in beta or stable.
> b. serve a purpose that a typical Dojo consumer would need on a semi-regular
> basis.
> c. having a focus that is part of the long term goals of the toolkit itself.
> d. is and continues to be under active development, if not entirely stable.
> On my short list here is FX, the Charting package, and (at least) Cometd.
>  What else ends up on this list is entirely up to discussion but I would
> like to keep it short and solid; for example, I would consider Storage to be
> a candidate but I'm not sure about off, etc.
> 3. Move everything else out of DojoX and out of the release cycle.
> Before anyone starts saying "hey, what the hell", hear me out.
> There are a lot of things sitting in DojoX currently that have only one
> developer, is not under active development, serves only a single party's
> needs, etc. etc.  Most of these projects, while some are very interesting,
> should really not be a part of a Dojo release cycle at all (and I think this
> is one of the reasons why we've been going back and forth on the whole
> separate package thing), and so I think we should be moving them out of
> DojoX altogether.  Things on this list (IMHO) include analytics, av, wires,
> sketch, collections, encoding, and more.
> However, I don't think we should be losing any of these projects either,
> so...
>
> 4. Take over the dojoc concept and rename it to something like "dplug",
> "plug" or "plugins".
> But I'm going to simplify this idea (after talking it over with Dustin);
> what we basically do is this:
> a.  allow anyone with current ownership of a DojoX project to choose how
> they would like to maintain the code (i.e. whether they want to move to a
> different repo system or not).
> b.  Provide a repo that is *not* on a release cycle; this would be what is
> currently the dojoc concept, but renamed to something like the above.
> c.  With every Dojo release, provide an empty directory at the same level as
> dojo, dijit and dojox--named the above.
> The idea here is to allow *anyone* to use that namespace as an automatic way
> of being able to drop plugins into an existing Dojo release, not have to
> worry about registering a namespace, and being able to instantly go with
> whatever code they want.  It'd also allow us to maintain a place where
> projects that have lived under DojoX for a while can undergo active
> development (if so desired) without having to be tied to a release cycle.
> It should also allow whoever to be able to do builds without a huge amount
> of extra pain.
> -----------------
> There are a few things that I have deliberately left out of this--the
> biggest one being anything that is currently in DojoX that is widget-based.
>  I have a proposal for this as well but I am unsure if it's the right way to
> go; however, I do feel that DojoX is no longer a place that widgets should
> be in and it should be congruent to Core and only Core.
> To this end, I might suggest creating a DijitX project--which would serve
> the same purpose for Dijit as DojoX does for Core.  Anything widget-based
> that the Dijit team feels is a good add-on to Dijit without having to
> satisfy the same stringent requirements can go in there.
> In my mind though, the main thing is that anything in the streamlined DojoX
> doesn't have or wrap any of the Dijit infrastructure.
> -----------------
> While aggressive, I think that this kind of change is definitely do-able for
> the 1.5 release (since it should not radically affect the other two
> projects); for backwards-compatibility, we can include simple stub files in
> DojoX with deprecation messages for existing users, and make sure that users
> of that codebase can find the new locations of their project dependency.
> I'm proposing this idea because it seems to me like it kills several birds
> with one stone--
> 1. We can clamp down on what goes into DojoX (i.e. no more playground)
> 2. We can stop worrying about individual package building
> 3. We can continue to couple DojoX to a Core release
> 4. We can really start promoting the idea of the plugin as essential to the
> continuing evolvement of DTK
> 5. We can provide a basic infrastructure for those plugins so that writing
> them is a simple matter of saying "call it plugin.foo and drop it in here".
> 6. The build system can pick up plugins by adding a couple of lines to a
> specific profile (iirc).
> -----------------
> Thoughts, arguments, suggestions?
> regards,
> trt
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Bill Keese <bill at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> I don't have anything new to add since the last time we talked about the
>> roadmap a few months ago, see:
>>
>> - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.dojo.devel/9622/match=roadmap
>> - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.dojo.devel/9752/focus=9783
>> _______________________________________________
>> dojo-contributors mailing list
>> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
>> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>
>


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list