[aerogear-dev] AeroGear.js

[Lucas Holmquist]

not sure if it came through, yet,  but my after thinking about the separate repo thing,  

“Thinking a little bit more,  we don’t need separte repo’s for each feature.  Thats what we can use AeroGear-Components thingy to distribute via bower.   We can script that shizzell,  to create custom feature builds”


> On Feb 24, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui at redhat.com>> wrote:
> While i was getting things together for the 2.1.0 release, I started to think about the structure of AeroGear.js.
> 
> Lets take DataManager as an example.
> 
> var dataManager = new AeroGear.DataManager();
> Basically, the resulting datamanger object is a fancy array. We can add new stores to it:
> 
> dataManager.add('memoryStoreThing');
> 
> dataManager.add({{
>     name: "indexDBStore",
>     type: "IndexedDB"
> }});
> I'm not sure what the reason for this was historically. I think this concept was initally created when we were doing Pipeline.
> 
> But sticking to this example, i'm wondering if it adds any value though. would someone create a Datamanager that has more than one store in it? It's possible i guess if someone wanted to store the same info in a IndexedDB and WebSQL database at the same, for example, but there is currently no way to sync data between the two
> 
> With the next release, 2.1.0, we will be deprecating Notifier, which uses this pattern.
> 
> So Datamanager and Sync would be the only things using this pattern. Which i'm not sure makes sense anymore.
> 
> The remaining parts of the Library, Crypto, UnifiedPush, and to some extent SimplePush(currenlty coupled with Notifier) don't do this.
> 
> I am leaning toward proposing we get rid of this pattern and just make a DataManager object hold 1 store/adapter( sync woud follow suit )
> 
> This change though would be a 3.0 thing since it would be changing the way the API works.
> 
> I'm also wondering if it would make sense to separate the differnt parts of the library into different repo's.
> 
> That would make Bower distribution easier right  ?  
> I think one of the main reasons this wasn't done in the past was because AeroGear.Core was shared across many pieces of the library and it would be a lot of code duplication.
> 
> But something like the UnifiedPush Client SDK, might make sense in a separate repo.
> 
> For distribution, i've actually created a AeroGear Component GH organization, that has pieces of the library, https://github.com/orgs/AeroGear-Components/dashboard <https://github.com/orgs/AeroGear-Components/dashboard>
> I think i've started to ramble, so i'll stop here and look for comments
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20150224/18d83dcf/attachment-0001.html