Re: moving forward—with a plan

Hi Markus,


On 28.05.2016 20:35, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:42 AM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
>> I also completed the survey.
> Thanks
>
>
>> But I have to disagree strongly with the
>> approach you propose. Why should we now, after years of discussion and
>> slow progress, just stumble into implementation when we are almost
>> done with some parts?
> To ensure they work for instance :-)
>
>
>> This applies to the collection design and some
>> other issues. This would blindly waste resources in my opinion. So
> How so? We could implement the current proposals and see whether they solve the issues they are supposed to solve. But maybe I don't understand what you had in mind.

Well let me make this more tangible then:
Why would we implement (be it a piece of code for the client or the 
server side)
the current collection model if the new design is already ratified?!
Sorry but that's __obviously__ a waste of resources.
The same applies to some other topics.
Also -- as outlined in my previous mail -- I see at least on fundamental 
decision (filtering/ querying)
that should be decided before start implementing helter-skelter now.
I think most people on the list have the ability
to discuss these matters on an abstract level.

>
>
>> what I think is that we should first try to resolve some basic issues
>> and then of course, we can do this -- I'm all for having something
>> working.
>>
>> I'm telling this as we have been waiting for some stuff and have
>> already implemented quite a lot.
> Wouldn't it then be straightforward to put it at test? Are you concerned that you'll need to throw away stuff or are you concerned that this will delay "standardization"?
Yes, in this stat, we will throw away stuff and I don't see how 
implementations will help as atm.

>
>
>> This also applies to other members of
>> the list as far as I understand from the recent mails.
>>
>> Now let me share our contribution to the overall effort. We have
>> published a generic Hydra Core Client that we use in production
>> already:
>>
>> https://github.com/pajax/hyjax
>>
>> It's based on a generic AJAX client in which we have invested quite a
>> lot of resources over years and recently have published:
>>
>> https://github.com/pajax/pajax
> Awesome. Are you fine with me referencing hyjax (and rhea) from our homepage?

Of course not!
Again I would have reported them but did not yet for the mentioned reasons.

>
>
>> It's not complete yet, for example we have not implemented the new
>> collection design as we were waiting for its finalization. It still
>> has other issues https://github.com/pajax/hyjax/issues/3 but I would
>> be glad of course, if we would build on it. The nice thing is that it
>> is based on/ resembles the to-be Web standard "fetch".
>>
>> We already did some stuff towards a new API console/ generic
>> extensible Hydra GUI Client here
>>
>> https://github.com/rhea/
>>
>> But this is too imperfect yet.
> OK.
>
> I'm still not sure whether I fully understood you. I would definitely love to understand your concerns better.
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
BG