[aerogear-dev] Suggestion for DataSync roadmap

[Lukáš Fryč]

The roadmap was further tweaked by the comments:

   - stick with dates proposed by Dan
   - added Offline/Persistence

Rendered version:
https://github.com/lfryc/aerogear.org/blob/partial-updates-spdy-batches/docs/planning/roadmaps/AeroGearConflictResolution.asciidoc

PR: https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/pull/386

~ Lukas

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey team,
>
> I've proposed following change to the Conflict Resolution part of the Data
> Sync roadmap after recent discussions about Data Sync.
>
> I'm very interested in feedback from all the specific SDK teams, in terms
> of whether the whole idea matches the visions you have for Data Sync and
> whether we are able to leverage (and/or extend) platform specific tools.
>
>
> Changes contains following additions:
>
>
>    - Dec 2014
>       - Partial Updates
>       - SPDY
>    - Jan 2015
>       - Batch API
>
>
> You can read the doc directly here (starting with 0.2.0):
>
>
> https://github.com/lfryc/aerogear.org/blob/partial-updates-spdy-batches/docs/planning/roadmaps/AeroGearConflictResolution.asciidoc#020-dec-2015-partial-updates-spdy
>
>
> Please leave any comment right in PR:
>
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/pull/386
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> ~ Lukas
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
> daniel.bevenius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I fine with Google docs or anything else.
>>
>>
>> On 4 September 2014 10:53, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc at gmail.com> 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-k66ooaGbJ5KrnWJWRyHRelwyjf6bk/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 at 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-DataSync-roadmap-tp9006p9114.html
>>>> Sent from the aerogear-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140911/a86a8dfa/attachment-0001.html