Re: streaming/push "out of scope", was Re: on API Requirements

Sandro, what do you think about keeping it on a back burner for now?

At the same time whenever we see that some choices in architecture may
make streaming/push harder to add later, we will clearly raise such concern.

On 01/31/2015 03:47 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 04:30 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> Everyone is blown away by the size of these requirements already.
>>
>> A streaming protocol for streams would be a great addition later, but
>> trying to jam it in here will literally sink this project.
>>
>> Please accept this as being out of scope.
> 
> I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "out of scope".  To me, in
> a WG, "out of scope" means "we're not even going to talk about this
> issue, because it's not the kind of problem our charter says we're
> supposed to talk about".  In general, it's up to the chairs in guiding
> to conversation to steer it away from things that are out of scope (in
> this sense) given their reading of the charter.
> 
> What I think you're saying above is that you don't think streams/push
> should be one of the requirements for the API.   That's plausible, but
> maybe we can label that as "Not a requirement", instead of "out of
> scope"?    That is, it's up to the group to come to consensus on what
> the requirements for the API are, and you're arguing this should not be
> one.  I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I'd also be interested in
> hearing whether likely vendors of this stuff think they can sell systems
> without streaming/push.
> 
> The alternative interpretation is that maybe you think our charter
> doesn't allow us to even consider this as a possible requirement, that
> it's out-of-scope for the group.   Like, an authentication system would
> surely be out-of-scope, and Harry was just arguing that WebFinger is out
> of scope.
> 
>         -- Sandro
> 
>>
>> Evan Prodromou
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2015, at 15:00, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
>>> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/29/2015 02:21 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>>> On 01/28/2015 06:13 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Can you justify most of the out-of-scope stuff?   Without streaming
>>>>>> or push, I don't see how this system could catch on.
>>>>> I think that server-to-server stuff is going to be more pertinent when
>>>>> we discuss the federation protocol.
>>>> Clients need streaming/push, too, don't they?
>>> +1
>>>
>>> in my experiments a while ago i used HTTP + JSON based pub/sub protocol
>>> Bayeux: http://svn.cometd.org/trunk/bayeux/bayeux.html
>>>
>>> using one of its implementations: http://faye.jcoglan.com/
>>>
>>> mentioned decentralized prototype with real time geolocation map layers:
>>> https://github.com/dspace-ng/dspace-app-action-slim
>>>
>>>
> 
>