Re: [aerogear-dev] Suggestion for DataSync roadmap

integrate seamlessly with LiveOak

>I expect in the mean time we should also play with prototypes and figure out what approaches fit best the needs, > and evaluate that functionally and performance-wise on sample apps. Yeah, we should definitely do that and especially with the later version as we still don't know the exact direction there. >Something what I'm missing is more comprehensive elaboration / insight in what are the target use cases and requirements on final architecture: Yeah, we should probably have some links from the road map to a page that elaborates more on these. I thought having too much in the road map would not be very nice but rather keep it pretty simple. We already have some information in the Specifications section [1] and perhaps that is the correct place to add such details and then link to them from the roadmap. What do you (all) think? >* integrate /w any general REST interface (compliant with given limitations) For the first stage we're thinking that the only requirement would be that the server can detect a conflict and return a 409 accompanied with the latest version of that the server has. This is what was discussed at the f2f and which Erik has a Forge plugin to generate. But the "real" data sync version will have much more impact on the backend and it would have to follow an application protocol that we define. >HATEOAS-compliant backend? Does this differ from the REST interface describe above now that some background information was provided? If it does that it would be great to either gather them here or that we add to aerogear.org. I'll push the branch to master so we can all work off it. > generic JAX-RS? Not sure about this, but would Erik's Forge plugin take care the generic JAX-RS backend case. Users would not need to use Forge if they choose not to, and we should document the requirements upon the backend like described in the first version. Again, if there are things we've missed then please add them. >*Use cases / end-user stories:* These could be added to the existing use cases I think. See the last section of [1]. Thanks for comments and the link to that document, I'll read through it. [1] http://diy-dbevenius.rhcloud.com/docs/specs/aerogear-data-sync/ On 25 August 2014 11:20, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hey Dan, > > this sounds good. > > I expect in the mean time we should also play with prototypes and figure > out what approaches fit best the needs, > and evaluate that functionally and performance-wise on sample apps. > > > > Something what I'm missing is more comprehensive elaboration / insight in > what are the target use cases and requirements on final architecture: > > *Requirements:* > > * integrate /w any general REST interface (compliant with given > limitations) > ** HATEOAS-compliant backend? > ** generic JAX-RS? > * integrate seamlessly with LiveOak > > *Use cases / end-user stories:* > > * mobile sales client > * mobile warehouse manager > * delivery agent > > Inspiration: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DMacL7iwjSMPP0ytZfugpU4v0PWUK0BT6lhya... > > > I expect we target different use cases in different phases. > So we could indicate what use cases are valid in what phase. > > Should we brainstorm this on wiki or so? > > > Cheers! > > ~ Lukas > > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Daniel Bevenius < > daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> >is Nov, 2014, right? >> Yep, sorry that should be 2015. I'll correct that. Thx >> >> >> On 25 August 2014 09:57, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >> >>> 0.2.0 (Nov, 2015) Conflict resolvers >>> is Nov, 2014, right? >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Bevenius < >>> daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> We have been working on a roadmap for DataSync to help our planning of >>>> the features and time frames. >>>> >>>> A suggestion for the roadmap can be found in this branch: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/danbev/beta.aerogear.org/tree/data-sync-rebirth-roadmap >>>> >>>> If you don't feel like building it yourself you can try this OpenShift >>>> instance: >>>> >>>> http://diy-dbevenius.rhcloud.com/docs/planning/roadmaps/AeroGearDataSync/ >>>> >>>> Please note that the dates are just made up and something that we need >>>> help from each client library project to provide feedback on what is >>>> reasonable. >>>> >>>> Let us know what you think and from the feedback given, either here or >>>> as PRs, we will try to break this down further and start creating JIRAs to >>>> link to the roadmap. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthias Wessendorf >>> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >