[dojo-contributors] dojo roadmap

Adam Peller peller at gmail.com
Thu May 14 13:31:25 EDT 2009


Well, I see plugins as a benefit and would rather see the 20-50% go
that route than basically have it continue along the same pattern we
have now.  I'm not sure to what extent Tom's plan is likely to address
the rest or just leaves it behind since it's the stuff we arguably
don't care about (granted, some of it should be abandoned/left
behind!)  You might say I favor focusing only on section #4 of Tom's
plan, but for all of the DojoX code and carefully crafting and
promoting releases for the pieces that matter.

-Adam


On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Mike Wilcox <mwilcox at sitepen.com> wrote:
> But isn't this alleviated by Tom's plan? I would guess that DojoX and
> DijitX would be about 20-50% the size of the current DojoX.
>
> Everything else becomes a plugin on its own release cycle. This helps
> dojo users too, who have trouble dealing with a DojoX package in a
> current release, even though it's fixed in the trunk.
>
> Mike Wilcox
> mwilcox at sitepen.com
> http://www.sitepen.com
> work: 650.968.8787 x218
> cell:     214.697.4872
>
> On May 14, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Adam Peller wrote:
>
>> One problem with one big release is coordination -- not really our
>> strength :) and not something that scales well  We rarely have the
>> same level of readiness across project.  We usually have spurts of
>> activity as developers have time to work on their projects, and our
>> releases are largely arbitrary where dojox or peripheral work is
>> concerned.  At best, we release around dojo and dijit features and try
>> to make sure nothing huge broke in dojox.  Delays in one section drag
>> out the whole release and make it harder for us to push code out.  In
>> reality, many of the dojox projects mightn not change all that much,
>> even the stable, well-used ones, yet users are forced to deal with
>> large tarballs with stuff they may not need, large changesets, etc.
>>
>> 2009/5/14 Tom Trenka <ttrenka at gmail.com>:
>>> I think this is a fair argument but I should say that most of these
>>> things
>>> are suggestions; I don't see any reason why releases could continue
>>> to be
>>> decoupled if that's what the community thinks is best.
>>> The main thing here for me is that we do a DojoX release as a
>>> single release
>>> and not deal with the whole "package each subproject separately"
>>> kind of
>>> thing.  Whether or not that release is tied to a Dojo Core release is
>>> something I think we can figure out.
>>> trt
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Adam Peller <peller at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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