is Nov, 2014, right?

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

I expect in the mean time we should also play with prototypes and figure

and evaluate that functionally and performance-wise on sample apps.

Something what I'm missing is more comprehensive elaboration / insight in

* integrate /w any general REST interface (compliant with given

HATEOAS-compliant backend?

generic JAX-RS?

*Use cases / end-user stories:*

and evaluate that functionally and performance-wise on sample apps.

wrote:

>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.

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

>The main architectural point I'm missing here is whether AeroGear sync server should be primarily at the end: >1) standalone storage mechanism with data sync capability (such as CouchDB) >CLIENT <--> DATA SYNC SERVER >2) mediator for synchronization with <pluggable> storage mechanism >CLIENT <--> DATA SYNC SERVER <--> STORE (pluggable) >And here pluggable storage mechanism could be JAX-RS server with interceptors, LiveOak server, MongoDB or CouchDB... I'l like to see this done using option 2 in your list above. >Just one more question, how are these documents up to date? >http://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-sync-client-api/ >http://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-sync-server-api/ No sorry, these are have not been updated only the roadmap and minor spelling corrections have been done to the DataSync spec page at this stage. On 25 August 2014 14:40, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Bevenius < > daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> >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? >> >> > +1 for linking them (I didn't notice that page, my bad, and good summary > btw) > > >> >* 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. >> > > The main architectural point I'm missing here is whether AeroGear sync > server should be primarily at the end: > > > 1) standalone storage mechanism with data sync capability (such as > CouchDB) > > CLIENT <--> DATA SYNC SERVER > > > > 2) mediator for synchronization with <pluggable> storage mechanism > > CLIENT <--> DATA SYNC SERVER <--> STORE (pluggable) > > And here pluggable storage mechanism could be JAX-RS server with > interceptors, LiveOak server, MongoDB or CouchDB... > > > > The proposals that I've seen (and I apologize if I've missed something) > talk about synchronization protocol (DS, OT), conflict resolution and means > of communication (request/response, realtime), > but doesn't talk about restrictions on backend architecture. And this I > guess applies to 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 versions as on the Roadmap. > > > > Just one more question, how are these documents up to date? > > http://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-sync-client-api/ > http://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-sync-server-api/ > > Is it something that fully reflects current implementation state / plans? > > >> >> >*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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >

Lukas and I talked yesterday and he brought up an issue that it is not as smooth as it could be to contribute to the roadmap. He instead suggested to have a shared docs which I'll later clean up and include in a pull request. The current version can be found here and is in raw asciidoc format: http://oksoclap.com/p/datasync_roadmap Let me know if this works out better. -- View this message in context: http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-Suggestion-for-Dat... Sent from the aerogear-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

I fine with Google docs or anything else. On 4 September 2014 10:53, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Yea, I rather meant if we are in brainstorming phase e.g. with Sync spec, > I see a fit for rather collaborative solution, > > but I was mistaken with suggesting oksoclap, because it does not offer > that level of interactivity as well. :-) > > > What I meant is sharing a document such as Data Sync Spec on > collaborative editor where: > > * you can suggest additions / modifications > * you can comment > * comments can be resolved once resolved > * that document is owned and maintained by group of people > > such as Google Docs: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hOsAN5og6dz07-k66ooaGbJ5KrnWJWRyHRelw... > > > But I don't see a point into bringing other technology if it should not > help us be more productive, so tell me if I'm mistaken! > > > Cheers, > > ~ Lukas > > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:31 AM, danielbevenius <daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Lukas and I talked yesterday and he brought up an issue that it is not as >> smooth as it could be to contribute to the roadmap. He instead suggested >> to >> have a shared docs which I'll later clean up and include in a pull >> request. >> >> The current version can be found here and is in raw asciidoc format: >> http://oksoclap.com/p/datasync_roadmap >> >> Let me know if this works out better. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-Suggestion-for-Dat... >> Sent from the aerogear-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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