[aerogear-dev] Sync Day 2: All our cars are frozen in ice

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com>wrote:

>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Jay Balunas <jbalunas at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Finally got a chance to read through the whole sync thread :-)
> >
> > I'm a big fan keeping it simple, especially for initial releases.  So
> limiting scope of our initial offering will be important imo.
> >
> > I really like the idea of defining the data model, protocol, client
> contract, etc... separate from a specific implementation.  As several have
> said, those are impl. details that we can change as needed.  For example
> Push - I like the idea of using it for notification of updates (optional,
> with fallback, & not required), but it should not be a 1.0 priority imo.
>  It should also be something that requires no (or minimal) updates from the
> app developer when we implement it.  At the end of the day it is just
> another way to let the app know something has changed :-)
> >
> > As for versioning, I'm concerned over having M1, M2, etc....  What do
> you think of sticking with semver 0.1, 0.2, etc...?
>
> +1 to semver
>

+1


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140130/157440fd/attachment.html