Starting the clock on first spec release
Ross Singer
I would like to get started on the first 30 day iteration of defining
our spec. I think we've basically found agreement that we'll start
with AtomPub for CRUD on defined resources, have a two piece
architecture consisting of the Jangle "core" (the AtomPub proxy) and
the service connectors (three if you count an external client). On
this pass we should focus on the R in CRUD.
If you agree, reply with a +1, disagree with a -1, abstain with a 0
Secondly, I think it would help to work towards a defined
functionality. Given the discussion on this and the ILS-DI lists, it
seems like an 'availability service' is the way to go. I'm a strong
proponent of "working code wins" and I hope this can break the logjam
a bit.
Unfortunately (sort of), I should be moving to another state in the
middle of this 30 day window, so I may be out of contact for a bit.
So, what do people think? Start the clock tomorrow and try to produce
our first spec release on May 16th?
Thanks,
-Ross.
Peter Murray
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
> I would like to get started on the first 30 day iteration of defining
> our spec. I think we've basically found agreement that we'll start
> with AtomPub for CRUD on defined resources, have a two piece
> architecture consisting of the Jangle "core" (the AtomPub proxy) and
> the service connectors (three if you count an external client). On
> this pass we should focus on the R in CRUD.
>
> If you agree, reply with a +1, disagree with a -1, abstain with a 0
Under the same reasoning as "Working Code Wins"... +1
> Secondly, I think it would help to work towards a defined
> functionality. Given the discussion on this and the ILS-DI lists, it
> seems like an 'availability service' is the way to go. I'm a strong
> proponent of "working code wins" and I hope this can break the logjam
> a bit.
+1
> Unfortunately (sort of), I should be moving to another state in the
> middle of this 30 day window, so I may be out of contact for a bit.
- -1
>
Peter
- --
Peter Murray http://www.pandc.org/peter/work/
Assistant Director, New Service Development tel:+1-614-728-3600;ext=338
OhioLINK: the Ohio Library and Information Network Columbus, Ohio
The Disruptive Library Technology Jester http://dltj.org/
Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFIBMZM4+t4qSfPIHIRAutxAKDLkYf7owfTTL0eWxzPyRjuwB3sxwCfcUAI
s5ZnSrEyJ++3fTgdCM+kexk=
=nVsE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Rylander
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I would like to get started on the first 30 day iteration of defining
> our spec. I think we've basically found agreement that we'll start
> with AtomPub for CRUD on defined resources, have a two piece
> architecture consisting of the Jangle "core" (the AtomPub proxy) and
> the service connectors (three if you count an external client). On
> this pass we should focus on the R in CRUD.
>
> If you agree, reply with a +1, disagree with a -1, abstain with a 0
>
+1
>
> Secondly, I think it would help to work towards a defined
> functionality. Given the discussion on this and the ILS-DI lists, it
> seems like an 'availability service' is the way to go. I'm a strong
> proponent of "working code wins" and I hope this can break the logjam
> a bit.
>
+1
>
> Unfortunately (sort of), I should be moving to another state in the
> middle of this 30 day window, so I may be out of contact for a bit.
>
>
> So, what do people think? Start the clock tomorrow and try to produce
> our first spec release on May 16th?
>
> Thanks,
> -Ross.
>
> >
>
--
Mike Rylander
| VP, Research and Design
| Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: mi...@esilibrary.com
| web: http://www.esilibrary.com
Galen Charlton
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Ross Singer <rossf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I would like to get started on the first 30 day iteration of defining
> our spec. I think we've basically found agreement that we'll start
> with AtomPub for CRUD on defined resources, have a two piece
> architecture consisting of the Jangle "core" (the AtomPub proxy) and
> the service connectors (three if you count an external client). On
> this pass we should focus on the R in CRUD.
>
> If you agree, reply with a +1, disagree with a -1, abstain with a 0
+1
> Secondly, I think it would help to work towards a defined
> functionality. Given the discussion on this and the ILS-DI lists, it
> seems like an 'availability service' is the way to go. I'm a strong
> proponent of "working code wins" and I hope this can break the logjam
> a bit.
+1
> So, what do people think? Start the clock tomorrow and try to produce
> our first spec release on May 16th?
+1
Regards,
Galen Charlton
LibLime
Godmar Back
generation Internet here.
I assume the 30 days include an implementation (code) for the first
spec draft, correct? Along with a running service for examination and
critiquing?
- Godmar
Ross Singer
> By all means, implement something. We're not designing the next
> generation Internet here.
I like this attitude!
> I assume the 30 days include an implementation (code) for the first
> spec draft, correct? Along with a running service for examination and
> critiquing?
Yeah, this is the plan, at least. Galen has indicated that he can
probably provide a test Koha instance to use as our reference ILS
(which I think is a good plan).
Perhaps an Equinoxer can provide OpenSRF as AtomPub for the Jangle
core? If not, I can easily mock up something in Merb. The argument
could be made to do both, of course.
-Ross.
townxelliot
> Hi everybody,
>
> I would like to get started on the first 30 day iteration of defining
> our spec. I think we've basically found agreement that we'll start
> with AtomPub for CRUD on defined resources, have a two piece
> architecture consisting of the Jangle "core" (the AtomPub proxy) and
> the service connectors (three if you count an external client). On
> this pass we should focus on the R in CRUD.
+1
>
> If you agree, reply with a +1, disagree with a -1, abstain with a 0
>
>
> Secondly, I think it would help to work towards a defined
> functionality. Given the discussion on this and the ILS-DI lists, it
> seems like an 'availability service' is the way to go. I'm a strong
> proponent of "working code wins" and I hope this can break the logjam
> a bit.
+1
>
>
> Unfortunately (sort of), I should be moving to another state in the
> middle of this 30 day window, so I may be out of contact for a bit.
>
>
> So, what do people think? Start the clock tomorrow and try to produce
> our first spec release on May 16th?
>
+1
Good luck!
Elliot
> Thanks,
> -Ross.
>
>