[dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.

Adam L. Peller adam at peller.org
Wed Oct 10 21:56:04 EDT 2012


Sorry I missed the meeting.

I don't like the odds of predicting what the right areas are to focus
on.  My hope for Dojo 2.0 is that we can fix the
packaging/distribution problem in a way that makes us more flexible,
so we don't get stuck with one release of one set of plugins, or tie
our future to decisions we make now.  Instead, we can have independent
pieces with independent release cycles, which can thrive or die,
people can use what they need, can do a major revision (3.0) when they
need to, work with other toolkits, etc. That's an oversimplification
of a very difficult problem, but we're in a much better position to do
this now with AMD, github, volo/cpm, etc., and getting that right may
matter more than what we initially release for 2.0.

-Adam


On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Rawld Gill <rgill at altoviso.com> wrote:
> We had a discussion today at the meeting about this.
>
>
>
> Some advocated that Dojo 2.0 should be equally focused throughout the
> abstraction spectrum--from boring low-level APIs to awesome high-level APIs.
> (+1 from me).
>
> The other viewpoint was that Dojo 2.0 should concentrate on the higher
> abstractions.
>
>
>
> Some seemed to believe that making the lower-level APIs easy-to-use would
> imply a penalty on the high-level APIs and the toolkit as a whole.
>
> Others, find this argument invalid. (+1)
>
>
>
> Everybody seemed to agree that *every* API needs to be examined and tuned
> carefully going forward with Dojo 2.0. (+1) This statement has big
> implications.
>
> Iiuc, there were a few that said we don’t have the resources to worry that
> the low-level stuff is awesome.
>
>
>
> Some argued that Dojo 2.0 should compete with any library that claims to
> solve the same problem as some part of Dojo. (+1)
>
>
>
> Lastly, I argued in particular that there is no reason we can’t compete with
> and win against JQuery…or any of the micro libs. I argued that, on some
> level, this is a business and we must be concerned about/grow market share.
>
>
>
> For those who were there…correct anything I summarized wrong. Others…these
> are important questions that we can’t revisit again for a long, long time.
> If you have something to say, now is the time.
>
>
>
> --Rawld
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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