[dojo-contributors] Dojo Utilities?

Tom Trenka ttrenka at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 13:09:24 EST 2011


I would agree.  This is much more of an application and much less
something that would be distributed as part of a toolkit or framework,
so it would be easier to release as standalone and let the Dojo
community promote it separately.

I do have thoughts about the other things mentioned on this thread,
but at the moment I'm trying to focus and will respond later, if
that's ok.

Regards--
Tom

2011/3/10 Adam L. Peller <adam at peller.org>:
> All good questions.  ttrenka can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think
> the package structure applies to webapps like this so much, so perhaps
> James' project is an opportunity to explore the github infrastructure/access
> control issues and ease our way into this, without worrying about other
> issues of drag and dependencies just yet.
>
> 2011/3/10 Chris Mitchell <ccmitchellusa at gmail.com>
>>
>> ok with goal of "breaking out pieces of our repository", but there are
>> some things that need to be ironed out ahead of time...
>> -Chris
>>
>> 1) Is this new GitHub project going on James' personal github account?  If
>> so, this will be a problem...if James were to go away for whatever reason
>> (not that  that will happen any time soon).   I hear there is a Dojo
>> Foundation account that can be used... Where are the details for how we can
>> establish GitHub projects maintained under this account.
>> 2) The Web Builder is new code that hasn't existed in dojo before, so it's
>> easy  easier to break out as it's own thing now.  It has client side parts
>> that can follow the package metadata spec from Ttrenka, but what are
>> considerations for package structure of the server pieces (Java-based) in
>> this case.
>> 3) For existing project's already part of Dojo distro's, for example gfx
>> that we want to split out to github, I believe we need to address (1) above,
>> and mandate that the separating packages follow ttrenka's package metadata
>> format.  We really need an exemplar project here, that illustrates how
>> developers should structure docs, tests, licenses, etc. so that Dojo.next
>> can be aggregated back together--not just from a JS module perspective.
>> Until an exemplar project is put together and an example of how the
>> extracted git projects can be re-aggregated to form Dojo.next, we should be
>> very careful...other wise Dojo WILL fragment, losing the value it's built up
>> to companies in the past.
>>    a) Docs need to be structured (phiggins' work should help here, but
>> guidelines still need to be written) so that they can be pulled together
>> into a reference guide. I don't think James' project is the one to use for
>> this because of (2)).
>>    b) We need to be able to run tests across sanctioned projects as a
>> whole, to ensure the separated modules continue work properly together.
>> 4) If we don't have the ability to pull separated projects back together
>> (3), it will be untenable for companies (like IBM) to do the legal work
>> necessary to make Dojo's pedigree the quality it needs to be for enterprise
>> customers.  This is not a small amount of work, but is something the OSS
>> community needs to be aware of in terms of downstream consumption in large
>> companies...it is important to continue to maintain our quality around
>> pedigree when things split out, and doing this on an aggregate distro is the
>> only feasible way right now.
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>> 2011/3/10 Adam L. Peller <adam at peller.org>
>>>
>>> So I've always been +1 on breaking out pieces of our repository, and
>>> utils seems to be a great place to start.  Not only would it enable a
>>> separate development and release cycle, but it would help bring down the
>>> size and complexity of our distribution.  There are many web developers who
>>> would feel overwhelmed by other languages and technologies besides html/css,
>>> and this particular app can ultimately be provided "in the cloud", in which
>>> case many developers would not require the source at all, so I think this is
>>> a great candidate.
>>> -Adam
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:34 AM, James Thomas <jthomas.uk at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm very close to reaching a stage where the Web Builder can be
>>>> released externally, both a hosted version and the entire source code.
>>>> The source code lives in a private github repository and the release
>>>> plan was going to be making the repo public, rather than committing it
>>>> to the actual Dojo SVN "utils" directory. Do people have any
>>>> objections to this?
>>>>
>>>> I very much see this project as being a member of our awesome Dojo
>>>> Utilities but given we want to break away DojoX from being under
>>>> centralised source control in the future, I didn't think adding
>>>> another large project to SVN seemed appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> Do we think that other tools might be broken out like this in the
>>>> future, like the new doc tools?
>>>>
>>>> I don't have many definite answers I'm afraid but wanted to bring it
>>>> up anyway.....
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> James Thomas
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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