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

Dylan Schiemann dylan at dojotoolkit.org
Thu Oct 11 00:04:09 EDT 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Frankly, I don't care at all about competing with other toolkits. I'm
tired of hearing about how we can win the war. Why are we at war, rather
than working hard to grow with the community at large?

Rather than focusing on building the one walled garden yet completely
open toolkit to rule them all, Dojo and the Dojo Foundation should be
thinking about how we can take our knowledge and make both our toolkit
and any others that share our open ideals better.

What I personally care about is creating a collection of tools (a
toolkit) that continues to make it simpler to build well architected and
highly performant apps, and that is easy to split up and scale up.

The focus needs to be on the APIs and tools and features that we need to
deliver on, and growing our community by becoming part of the bigger
community. We didn't start Dojo to win the war, we started Dojo to
change the web and make it more open and collaborative.

We need to focus on building an amazing foundation, pushing things
forward, and people will continue to notice. We've had a lot more
interest lately as people take another look at Dojo, and interesting
group of new people that have become involved, or that want to see where
2.0 goes to see how they can help.

One idea I've had involves sort of having the foundation be a bit less
about silo-ed projects, and more about areas of interest that one or
more projects can come together to collaborate on.

For example, this might look something like:

* Utilities
* Modules
* Language improvements and shims
* UI (widgets, themes, mobile, effects, vector graphics, etc. ... this
one is probably too big)
* Data/MVC
* Server-side integration/REST/Real-time

with the idea being to encourage projects with overlap to more easily
collaborate across projects where it makes sense. People could either be
involved with projects, or just involved in an area of interest, or
both. It might make the foundation a more inviting place to encourage
collaboration, etc.? But more importantly I think, it would encourage
projects to perhaps share some common APIs, so that each microtoolkit
isn't reinventing the wheel.

The goal for Dojo 2.0 should not be to try and take on the weight of the
world and do everything, but should be to provide the right set of tools
and community and vision so that our users can do everything with Dojo
as part of that story.

Until we have that, I don't care about the competition, because it
frankly doesn't matter and it's the wrong place to put the attention of
an open source project as we're trying to plan towards 2.0.

Looking at the various suggestions, those from Colin, Rick Waldron, &
James Burke mesh most closely with what I think our priorities should be
for 2.x, as well as what I wrote of course.

Regards,
- -Dylan

on 10/10/12 8:39 PM (GMT-07:00) Rawld Gill said the following:
> Great point on packaging/distribution.
> 
> I think the issue of *how* we release is yet another key view slice through what we are trying to accomplish. We did discuss this a little today, including the idea that one of our release artifacts in the future could be a single-script, loaderless package that could compete with the microlibs/jquery.
> 
> --Rawld
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dojo-contributors-bounces at mail.dojotoolkit.org [mailto:dojo-
>> contributors-bounces at mail.dojotoolkit.org] On Behalf Of Adam L. Peller
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:56 PM
>> To: dojo dev.
>> Subject: Re: [dojo-contributors] what is the raison detre for dojo 2.0.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlB2RTkACgkQ1E2HcBNypM7vBwCgoQVHEkatOzQ7XcCQhpsXqQSI
LdsAnjzzJ95wPrMGLzE+67qQ+qPwI6cf
=crU6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list