Icarus

[Roberto Segura]

I'm opening this because current discussion is being messed with the Single Task Controllers thread ( https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/joomla-dev-cms/a5nU71UKrw8 ) and people can miss it.

What is Icarus?

Icarus is a new playground to explore the future of Joomla. What do we want and how do we want to do it. PLT has created a repo to act as a playground and is inviting people to join efforts to ensure the future of Joomla. The repo is:

https://github.com/joomla-projects/icarus

Let's have a constructive discussion here please.

[Andrew Eddie]

I'm a fan of "constructive" meaning hoping for the very best while still being painfully aware of the sometimes grim realities.

So far what I've come up with is that a full PHP 5.4/5.5 CMS has already been done. That could leave Icarus to start with the idea to completely replace the new and old core MVC code and also FoF with a PHP 5.4/5.5 framework from scratch. Now, thinking out loud, WordPress has exactly the same problem so it would also be interesting to keep in the back of our mind a WordPress bridge. The value proposition here is that if you learn the new Joomla extension framework, out of the box you will have support for WordPress too ... and I think that would be a killer motivation for dev's to want to try it out and also support it (unlike the motivation to change extensions from 1.5 to 1.6 format because they had no say in it and many still don't see the point of why they should have done so).

The second thing is to have a think about extension types. I think we can eliminate custom modules from the equation if we create a single generic module that is able to display any component view in exactly the same way the menu system renders a component's view. That would keep the presentation layer very DRY.

We could talk a lot about the MVC but I think the lynch pin is agreeing on the ORM to use to support the components. The second key area is the view-layout layer where we try to solve how we can transform between CSS frameworks.

That, too me at least, is what the first stage of Icarus could be.

Regards,

Andrew Eddie

[Andrew Eddie]

Oh, and I forgot to mention we should also look at doing away with the
idea of having both frontend and backend extensions. At best you do
all administration from the frontend - at best your backend is reading
views from the frontent component.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Michael Babker]

I can't help but to agree with a lot of what Andrew has said here.  I know publicly I've been griping quite a bit about one of my projects lately, but they have done a lot of things right that we should do at the core level, a big one being in their MVC structure.  They have a single set of models and table classes for both site and admin and could probably do the same with their controllers.  It's actually really well constructed in that aspect.  They also only have format specific view classes; Joomla core has format specific controller classes which really isn't that great structure wise.  The amount of de-duplicated code in their structure is a great example and how I envision the smaller Framework based apps I've built.

Other thoughts:

- Site/admin applications - I just don't see the need for two separate applications anymore, everything could be consolidated into one application and the ACL and routing systems be pushed to handle that better.  Sure, we could still have an /administrator route and a more streamlined admin UI for that route, but you could also start incorporating more of your admin tasks into other parts of the site structure.

- Better CLI support - The CMS isn't really well suited to work with CLI commands right now.  I don't think it's bad code necessarily, a lot of the paradigm was written at a time where we weren't wanting such support.  Making it easier to hook into component level code at a CLI level would be a great thing for admins and developers.

- Testability - More emphasis is being placed on automated testing today than at any time in the past, which is a good thing.  The project's reacted well but there's only so much that can be done in the current structure.  At a unit testing level, there is still a good chunk of untestable code that is going to require breaks to get working.  Plus, our extension layer is practically untestable.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Andrew Eddie]

Some more brain dumping.

I think we need to have an interface for the ORM so that we don't
suffer from vendor lock-in, and it's something we could submit as a
PSR. I also think we should move to no-SQL queries and use the Mongo
syntax (see http://php.net/manual/en/mongo.queries.php). The reason is
it's easier to translate no-SQL to SQL than the other way around (I
have some proof-of-concept code in this regard).

Also, it should be drop-dead-easy for a component to access the API of
any other extension.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[dgt41]

I guess cloud computing has to come into the equation sooner or later.

Why not make an infrastructure (e.g. with Chef) and the end user following a simple step by step ends up with a total usable site.

So first step make an account on google engine, amazon, digital ocean, etc

go to joomla.org fill some form and voila, site is up and running (on nginx, php-fpm percona ONLY the best technologies)

 

This eliminates a lot of walls the end user sees as stoppers (not to mention that the cost goes next to nothing...)

Then a really well structured component store (real store, people can by extensions, templates, plugins) will complete my idea of the next gen CMS.

Of course the code of the CMS has to be on solid, well tested and well known libraries (cherry pick here can be extremely useful, and time saver)

Just some ideas

Dimitris

[Andrew Eddie]

On 17 July 2014 09:09, dgt41 <> wrote:
> Then a really well structured component store (real store, people can by
> extensions, templates, plugins) will complete my idea of the next gen CMS.

I'd do the store in Node :P

Otherwise really good ideas.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Matt Thomas]

Sent from mobile. Please pardon any typos or brevity.

On Jul 16, 2014 6:57 PM, "Andrew Eddie" <mamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also, it should be drop-dead-easy for a component to access the API of
> any other extension.

I can't +1 this enough. Chad Windnagle and I have even been discuss the idea of always implementing models as APIs.

Best,

Matt Thomas
203.632.9322
http://betweenbrain.com/

[Chris Davenport]

In my opinion, central to what the product needs to be is that all communication with it should be via a RESTful hypermedia API.  I don't just mean when you are talking to it using HTTP, I mean even when talking to it by instantiating its classes.  The HTTP stuff should be just a thin wrapper around that core API; one that can be replaced by other wrappers such as for CoAP and other emerging protocols, so that the product can become a first-class citizen in the Internet of Things as well as offering better integration with today's mobile devices.

One huge advantage is that you can swap out entire technologies behind that API if you want to.  You're not tied to any particular platform, framework or even language.  Components should only ever talk to one another via that API so that they are properly decoupled and able to evolve independently.

We need to go beyond what is currently thought of as being a CMS.  Indeed, I would stop using the term CMS at all as it doesn't properly describe what Joomla is today let alone what I'd like to see it become.

Just my opinion.

Chris.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Chris Davenport
Joomla Production Leadership Team

[George Wilson]

I agree with what Michael and Andrew said mostly. What I disagree with is the merging of frontend and backend. I remember back when I was trying out Wordpress/Drupal/Joomla back in the day (note a couple of years ago now so things may well have evolved in the other two projects) and one of the biggest issues I had with Drupal from a UI perspective was this merging of frontend and backend. It didn't feel natural and it didn't feel easy to manage in any way. I'm sure if you do that stuff enough you could get used to it. But first impressions with the user experience count....

I think what we have now with that is good - editable articles in the frontend for "quick-fix editing". But other than that the majority of parameter editing, item creating etc. etc. should all be in the back end.

Kind Regards,

George

[Allrude]

+1 George, 

but a 1 page backend solution like the Wordpress (new blog page) would give us a better workflow. 

also thanks to AE pointing out October CMS, i think we can learn from there efforts to.

Instead of reinventing the wheel choosing a good framework to build the new J4.0 would help us greatly

just my 2 cents

Icarus ignored instructions not to fly too close to the sun, but thousands followed his idea's and we reached the moon, so whats holding Joomla back ?

[dgt41]

Before everybody go mad on programming anything (or everything) it would be a nice task evaluating existing code (either on joomla-framework repo or publicly available).

Therefore I want to point out a good list:

https://github.com/ziadoz/awesome-php

One possible way may be: choosing a micro (slim) framework and add all the functionality with composer (with the best libraries out there)

I love the API-fication of joomla components idea, by the way

Dimitris

[Roberto Segura]

I'm very happy to have misunderstood you. I like the idea of something that could increase the extension developers market and it could be a great step forward because I'm sure more extensions would come if we achieve that goal. I think Nicholas is working in something like that (almost finished it I think) so he can have some good ideas / base code about it.

I think everybody agrees in make modules disappear. The only problem with that is when an extension is not available to provide the data that modules want to show. Something I've been thinking (and have working on some of my modules) are data providers. So you when you can install a data provider with or without an extension to serve any time of data (from a REST service, a folder with images, etc.). That would ease third part extensions interactions because they provide the way to interact with them.

About the view-layout layer I think we have to know what designers think about that because they are the professionals that are going to use it.

I also agree that the first thing to discuss is probably the ORM.

Thanks for participating on this Andrew.

[Roberto Segura]

I totally agree with you Chris. Once we have that a full world of internal & external interactions is open for us. An it will save us a lot of problems of backward compatibility issues.

El jueves, 17 de julio de 2014 10:05:28 UTC+2, Chris Davenport escribió:

In my opinion, central to what the product needs to be is that all communication with it should be via a RESTful hypermedia API.  I don't just mean when you are talking to it using HTTP, I mean even when talking to it by instantiating its classes.  The HTTP stuff should be just a thin wrapper around that core API; one that can be replaced by other wrappers such as for CoAP and other emerging protocols, so that the product can become a first-class citizen in the Internet of Things as well as offering better integration with today's mobile devices.

One huge advantage is that you can swap out entire technologies behind that API if you want to.  You're not tied to any particular platform, framework or even language.  Components should only ever talk to one another via that API so that they are properly decoupled and able to evolve independently.

We need to go beyond what is currently thought of as being a CMS.  Indeed, I would stop using the term CMS at all as it doesn't properly describe what Joomla is today let alone what I'd like to see it become.

Just my opinion.

Chris.

On 17 July 2014 00:21, Matt Thomas <ma...@betweenbrain.com> wrote:

Sent from mobile. Please pardon any typos or brevity.

On Jul 16, 2014 6:57 PM, "Andrew Eddie" <mamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also, it should be drop-dead-easy for a component to access the API of
> any other extension.

I can't +1 this enough. Chad Windnagle and I have even been discuss the idea of always implementing models as APIs.

Best,

Matt Thomas
203.632.9322
http://betweenbrain.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Leo Lammerink]

+1: I happen to agree with that. I do not see any value in super admin functionality in frontend other than George mentions.

On 7/17/2014 6:22 PM, George Wilson wrote:

But other than that the majority of parameter editing, item creating etc. etc. should all be in the back end.

--

Leo Lammerink
MD GWS - Enterprise Ltd
Skype: gwsgroup
www.gws-desk.com | www.gws-host.com | www.gws-deals.today

[Michael Babker]

Visually, you can make a distinction between "frontend" and "backend" and use systems like ACL and routing to assist with it.  From an architectural standpoint though, to me, there is no purpose in having completely separate application classes and extensions that discourage DRY development principles.  com_content's save action should call the same code whether you have the "light frontend editor" or the full admin interface basically.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.

[Troy]

ok, either I missed a lot of posts somehow or jumped in the middle of a
very strange conversation.
what in the world is iccarus and what is ORM?
Bear

[Bakual]

Icarus is an experimental repository for those who want to explore ways for a next Joomla. It has been created a week ago started by some discussion in the single task controller thread in this group.

ORM means object-relation mapping. I think you could say it describes how you interact with the database. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_mapping.

[Andrew Eddie]

On 18 July 2014 00:41, Michael Babker <> wrote:
> Visually, you can make a distinction between "frontend" and "backend" and
> use systems like ACL and routing to assist with it. From an architectural
> standpoint though, to me, there is no purpose in having completely separate
> application classes and extensions that discourage DRY development
> principles. com_content's save action should call the same code whether you
> have the "light frontend editor" or the full admin interface basically.

Yes, that's what I meant - one application to rule all of the visual
areas of the site, however the theme master wants to skin them.

Now some ground rules. Is PHP 5.5 out of bounds (I hope not) and can
we assume that all new code we release at a framework level is LGPL
out of the gate (I hope so)?

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[George Wilson]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:41:07 PM UTC+1, Andrew Eddie wrote:

On 18 July 2014 00:41, Michael Babker <> wrote:
> Visually, you can make a distinction between "frontend" and "backend" and
> use systems like ACL and routing to assist with it.  From an architectural
> standpoint though, to me, there is no purpose in having completely separate
> application classes and extensions that discourage DRY development
> principles.  com_content's save action should call the same code whether you
> have the "light frontend editor" or the full admin interface basically.

OK agreed that core routing and application classes shouldn't be different. I just wanted to ensure we don't mix up what is the "backend" and the "frontend" in terms of the user experience.

 

Yes, that's what I meant - one application to rule all of the visual
areas of the site, however the theme master wants to skin them.

Well as long as the backend and frontend themes can be independent. I'm sure all the template companies have no real interest in skinning that backend as well :P Plus it's easier for dev's to have that unified bootstrap thing backend (although frontend as we've agreed didn't work)

 

Now some ground rules. Is PHP 5.5 out of bounds (I hope not) and can
we assume that all new code we release at a framework level is LGPL
out of the gate (I hope so)?

I think it depends when this is going to be ready (in terms of what linux is shipping with as we did for 2.5 and 3.x)

 

Kind Regards,

George

[Andrew Eddie]

On 18 July 2014 10:49, George Wilson <> wrote:
> I think it depends when this is going to be ready (in terms of what linux is
> shipping with as we did for 2.5 and 3.x)

Which flavour of Linux? Given that 5.3 is EOL I assume we can set the
minimum at 5.4 at the very least?

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Michael Babker]

I'd say 5.4 should be the minimum just because of the EOL for 5.3 upon us.  Depending on timelines and what the various distros are shipping with, 5.5 could indeed be an option.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Eddie]

On 18 July 2014 11:49, Michael Babker <> wrote:
> I'd say 5.4 should be the minimum just because of the EOL for 5.3 upon us.
> Depending on timelines and what the various distros are shipping with, 5.5
> could indeed be an option.

Ok, fair enough. So on the license, is there any developer that
intends on contributing to Icarus that is opposed to non-application
code being LGPL. To be clear, that means that Joomla+Icarus is GPL, an
Icarus extension is GPL, but 1st-party code that goes into it can be
LGPL (and 3rd party code can be any compatible and approved OSI
license).

Sound fair?

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[George Wilson]

Ok, fair enough. So on the license, is there any developer that

intends on contributing to Icarus that is opposed to non-application
code being LGPL. To be clear, that means that Joomla+Icarus is GPL, an
Icarus extension is GPL, but 1st-party code that goes into it can be
LGPL (and 3rd party code can be any compatible and approved OSI
license).

As long as legally we can include that stuff and still call the overall Joomla Icarus project thingy GPL I have no objections. Especially MIT is important I guess with PSR's, jQuery and Bootstrap (and for us I guess things like Symfony)

[Dmitry Rekun aka b2z]

Now this is interesting. Pagekit CMS by YooTheme has opened the code:

https://github.com/pagekit/pagekit

Based on Symfony and Composer.

Dmitry

пятница, 18 июля 2014 г., 11:57:26 UTC+3 пользователь George Wilson написал:

[Andrew Eddie]

This https://github.com/pmjones/mvc-refinement

and this http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6020

are definitely worth a read and review.

Aura itself is also worth a look http://auraphp.com

I like the direction Paul takes with a lot of his patterns (shame it's PSR-2, hehe).

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Nils Rückmann]

For those who are interested in other CMS and Frameworks for getting ideas:

http://neos.typo3.org/
http://flow.typo3.org/

[kisswebdesign]

I've started looking at the yii framework (version 2, which is beta at the moment):

http://www.yiiframework.com/news/77/yii-2-0-beta-is-released/

Some will undoubtedly object to the adoption of PSR-1, PSR-2 & PSR-4 but those discussions belong elsewhere :-)

It does have a php5.4 minimum requirement, but I think that's a good thing going forward.

[Andrew Eddie]

PSR-1 or PSR-4 are actually things we'd require if looking at Composer packages (they are the auto loader standards necessary for supporting interoperability). PSR-2 doesn't affect anything unless you are actually contributing back to that framework.  

Regards,

Andrew Eddie 

--

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Nils Rückmann]

Since Nick closed the announcement issue (https://github.com/joomla-projects/icarus/issues/1). Is there any "real" idea how this repository should work ? Do you just want to use the issue tracker ? How do you want to track or coordinate different ideas in the same repository ? One of the best thing on Github (or just Git) is the ability to create repositories on the fly.

[Bakual]

You can create branches on the fly as well :)

The idea was to not have 20 repos flying around each containing an idea. With a single repo with different branches it would be in one single place for people to find. That's the idea behind it. But it's just that. If there are better ideas feel free to share.

The main goal is to have a place to experiment. You can't do that in the joomla/joomla-cms repo for obvious reasons, so we created a new playground ;)

[Nils Rückmann]

As each pull request should use a branch, don't you see any disdvantages ?
My proposal: Create a dedicated "projects.joomal.org" where projects can be proposed and discussed. If a project is approved (e.g. gets enough votes) it will get a repository on Github. Since the Github API offers us a lot of features this could be automated. Even collaborators could be created or removed, which leads to a democratic way of projekt management.

Example workflow:

Defines:
User - A Joomla enthusiast
Contributor - A Joomla enthusiast who is willing to spend some time for the specific project
Maintainer - A Contributor with access to commit pull requests

1. A User creates a project proposal
2. Users discussing the project (mostly not technical) and vote it up or down
3. Users can join as contributor
4. If there are enough votes, and if there are enough willing contributors the projects is approved
5. Create the repository (automated)
6. Election: People can vote 3 maintainers
7. Elected maintainers are getting access (automated)

8. If neccessary (e.g. a maintainer droped): Re-election

AFAIK most of open source projects have problems with therir project management. So this could be created a standalone application (e.g. based on laravel) where other open source projects can join.

[Bakual]

Umm, to me that sounds extremely complicated. And I'm not sure I understand the intention.

We're not talking about multiple projects here. There is one single project which is building a possible future Joomla. However currently there is not a single line of code yet.

Our idea was to start with a single repo to allow a place for those first lines of code. For now I still think a single repo is more than enough for that. Just having a collaborative playground where we can basically add any interested developer if needed. We don't need a complex project management for a experimental playground, right?

The discussions I see lately are focussing on the name of the repo, how many repos it should be and about a missing roadmap. That's certainly not the kind of discussion that should happen there.
Andrew already made some interesting architure proposals, but so far nobody discussed them. Which is a bit disappointing to see for me.

[Andrew Eddie]

On 29 July 2014 21:05, Bakual <> wrote:
> Andrew already made some interesting architure proposals, but so far nobody
> discussed them. Which is a bit disappointing to see for me.

All I can say is, like many before me, I've run out of puff. Back to
Node for me.

Signing off.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Michael Babker]

Reminds me almost of the ideas pool that features are supposed to be suggested and voted upon at but is more of a ghost town than an active collaboration center...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.

[Paul Orwig]

I think the main problems with the ideas pool was/is that it wasn't the right tool for the job (good for measuring votes, not so good for connecting devs who might be interested to work together on different initiatives).

I think Nils makes some very valid points. Perhaps what's most important is to first agree we need to try and find a better way to decide on goals and priorities and then recruit/mobilize/support/recognize devs who will be willing to work on those goals and priorities.

I agree with the point made earlier by Robert Deutz that a vision for the next version of Joomla needs to be decided/agreed on.

If we can get an agreement on that, then people's attention, energy and effort can begin to get organized around the next steps for how to accomplish/implement that vision.

I think it is critical that we have active guidance and leadership through this process if there is going to be a good outcome.

 

[Bakual]

How would you suggest to create such a vision for the next version of Joomla?
I don't think the PLT has to define that one out of thin air. Imho it should be a collaborative effort of the community. At least for the initial part where you collect the ideas. PLT likely has to make a decision sometime then based on the available ideas.

But first you need to collect the ideas.

Andrew gave such an idea. Personally I like his vision of where to go. I'm sure there are other ideas as well. It's not the time to share them. And maybe even start coding some proof of concepts.

I'm not sure where the best place is for this type of discussion/work. We though the repo may help.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cms+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to joomla-dev-cms@googlegroups.com.

[George Wilson]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:16:04 PM UTC+1, Bakual wrote:

How would you suggest to create such a vision for the next version of Joomla?
I don't think the PLT has to define that one out of thin air. Imho it should be a collaborative effort of the community. At least for the initial part where you collect the ideas. PLT likely has to make a decision sometime then based on the available ideas.

But first you need to collect the ideas.

Andrew gave such an idea. Personally I like his vision of where to go. I'm sure there are other ideas as well. It's not the time to share them. And maybe even start coding some proof of concepts.

I really don't think we should be coding yet. I'd just like to see some executive summary's of proposals and roughly how people want to achieve them. Half the problems we have in Joomla is that someone proposes some code and then however crap it is we accept it because they got there first.

What we should be doing is talking together about the features we want to have - because that will help define the code we need to get there. What do the USERS want to see from Joomla in the future? How does your new code improve on the existing code base. Could the large part of your changes be made by improvements on our existing code base (in a lot of cases probably).

For example with the constant talk of using Laravel/Symfony - Drupal are REALLY struggling to push Drupal 8 out the door - do we want to put ourselves in the same position? Just because we can substitute in other libraries doesn't mean that we should. (N.B. I'm not expressing an opinion either way on this I'm just saying before we start coding we should be looking around at others experiences before we start to code).

My point being I'd rather just see a set of docs with various ways to go with Joomla before we start to code with a range of options which the leadership can then vote on and we can have a code direction defined before we start coding it.

Kind Regards,

George

[Peter Trotman]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Bakual <werbe...@bakual.ch> wrote:
> [. . . ]

> Andrew gave such an idea. Personally I like his vision of where to go. I'm
> sure there are other ideas as well. It's not the time to share them.

Did you mean "It's NOW the time to share them"?

Peter Trotman

[Bakual]

Aw crap, stupid typo! Thanks.

Indeed it should be "It's NOW the time to share them" (the ideas).

[Robert]

Am Dienstag, 29. Juli 2014 16:58:04 UTC+2 schrieb George Wilson:

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:16:04 PM UTC+1, Bakual wrote:

How would you suggest to create such a vision for the next version of Joomla?
I don't think the PLT has to define that one out of thin air. Imho it should be a collaborative effort of the community. At least for the initial part where you collect the ideas. PLT likely has to make a decision sometime then based on the available ideas.

But first you need to collect the ideas.

Andrew gave such an idea. Personally I like his vision of where to go. I'm sure there are other ideas as well. It's not the time to share them. And maybe even start coding some proof of concepts.

I really don't think we should be coding yet. I'd just like to see some executive summary's of proposals and roughly how people want to achieve them. Half the problems we have in Joomla is that someone proposes some code and then however crap it is we accept it because they got there first.

Agree 100%

 

What we should be doing is talking together about the features we want to have - because that will help define the code we need to get there. What do the USERS want to see from Joomla in the future? How does your new code improve on the existing code base. Could the large part of your changes be made by improvements on our existing code base (in a lot of cases probably).

I don't think the existing code base is a good start, I think one of the main problem is that we can't test the code/ functionality properly. So being able to test pretty much everything must have a high priority.

 

For example with the constant talk of using Laravel/Symfony - Drupal are REALLY struggling to push Drupal 8 out the door - do we want to put ourselves in the same position? Just because we can substitute in other libraries doesn't mean that we should. (N.B. I'm not expressing an opinion either way on this I'm just saying before we start coding we should be looking around at others experiences before we start to code).

What I heard is that it is more a education problem. People seems to have problems with some basic coding principals. 

Going with another framework has the advantage that you don't need to document anything, just the bits we added. Further more if people like to use it for Enterprise they can use only the framework and go with that.

 

Cheers,

Robert

[Nils Rückmann]

Please move discussion to repository https://github.com/joomla-projects/icarus/issues

[Beat]

I'm seing a lot of discussions on the "how" to implement, but not that much on the "what" we want in the next release. It's like discussing an engine technology without having a vision for what for the engine should be built in the first place.

Imho, there should be a PM (Joomla CMS Product Management) workgroup, which talks with marketing, support and development groups as well as with leadership, and which is not only composed of pure developers, but should certainly include UX people.

Then once the vision of what we want to do is clear, the "how" can be much more specific (and just use best tools available for the how to reach the "what" in the quickest and easiest way).

What is pretty clear to me is that JFramework continues to be a nice and compatible base for Joomla but it has lacked of software architecture vision, when compared with modern frameworks, and thus also of vision of what other frameworks were doing since years. So by itself the JFramework is only interesting to Joomla developers which already know its API (for now).

Thus I would suggest that the future PM group should be focussed on the Joomla CMS, which is our flagship.

Thus not sure that github is the right media for PM group discussions and decisions.

Best Regards,
Beat
http://www.joomlapolis.com/

[Sergio Manzi]

These are the words! +1E100

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.

[Dmitry Rekun aka b2z]

Nice Beat +1

[Sonja Russo]

Great words Beat!

IMO, i would focus on what Joomla is and has is strength. Joomla is the 2° CMS in the world, and it's so powerful thanks to the extensions and developers that make it possible extend it.

Another framework? I don't believe that a Joomla Framework can have a future and compete with milestones such as Zend framework, Laravel, Symphony, etc

Probably it would be used only by people that develop with Joomla and develop extensions for some standalone apps.

Moreover the Joomla project is carried on by volunteers, there are not enough resources for a framework project that can compete with professional frameworks.

The future of Joomla, the business of Joomla for all of us, is the Joomla CMS and extensions development. I would spend energies exclusively on this aspects.

Instead to build a framework that could interest only to Joomla developers, there are many urgent tasks to carry on, first of all the JED. It's managed in inefficient way

and should be completely re-thinked.

[Leo Lammerink]

Do not get me wrong since from the early start of Joomla I have been a full sized supporter of Joomla. However based on your reply I need to point you to Pagekit by Yootheme which is one of the best and most awarded template farmers in Joomlasphere. We use them on all our developments where possible. You will learn that Pagekit is super lite, Symfony driven and has for sure established a huge fan-base amongst Joomla developers due to it's architecture/framework.

Having said so we are on a good path re. Lite and Lean also and PLT have definitely picked up the challenge we (Joomla) are facing with these new frameworks and these are good so we have to for us to be able to survive!

++1 on JED but that is a known issue for me
--

Leo Lammerink
MD GWS - Enterprise Ltd
Skype: gwsgroup
www.gws-desk.com | www.gws-host.com | www.gws-deals.today

[Nils Rückmann]

Please use the repository (https://github.com/joomla-projects/icarus) to stay focused.

[Paul Orwig]

Hi Thomas,

To help create a vision for the next version of Joomla, I would suggest publishing a survey to gather ideas from the community (and possibly even from those who are outside the Joomla community). The results of the survey can be one of the inputs that PLT or an Icarus working group uses to create the vision for Icarus.

A survey was published in late 2012 for the purpose of helping to define overall project goals for 2013. It was published in 6 languages and I think we got ~2,000 responses. Some questions were asked about what type of role/user, what type of sites they used Joomla for, as well as what type of sites they thought Joomla should aim to serve. The survey also asked for preferences about potential new Joomla features (as well as improvements on joomla.org and the project as a whole - since that survey was tied to overall project goals).

If a survey was published soon, I think JWC would be a good time/place to keep building interest and support and keep the process moving forward, perhaps with a talk and/or working session to share and discuss results from the survey as well as other ideas, that would lead to either a draft or final vision.

I think all of the current discussions that are going on about frameworks, composer, design patterns, etc. are great, and they can and should continue.

Nick Savov and I along with others worked on that earlier survey, and I would be happy to answer questions or offer my help with a new survey if there is interest to take that approach again to create a vision for the next version of Joomla.

Thanks,

paul

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.

[brian teeman]

Whatever happened to the results of that survey? I dont recall seeing anything

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nils Rückmann]

Please use the repository (https://github.com/joomla-projects/icarus) for icarus related discussion to stay focused.

[Paul Orwig]

@Brian - The results of that survey were shared with members of PLT, CLT and OSM. It was my intent to publish the results of the survey, but that never happened. The way that survey was implemented (we used Survey Monkey and each language was a separate survey) made it difficult to conduct advanced cross reference analysis, although Alan Langford put a lot of time and effort into helping with that.

After the 2013 overall project goals were published, I intended to come back and publish a blog with some analysis/conclusions along with links to the overall consolidated responses as well as separate responses for each languages, but I didn't get that done.

@Nils - thanks for the reminder about using the repository! I will do that moving forward.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Nils Rückmann <syb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please use the repository (https://github.com/joomla-projects/icarus) for icarus related discussion to stay focused.

--

[Sergio Manzi]

Niels, I think everybody has already got your point, that you would like the discussion about "a new Joomla" to be held on Github's project Icarus repo.

Apparently this vision is not shared by all people commenting here.

Beat brought out what I think are some very good points.

Personally I've lurked into the repo discussion and I have to say that I'm not very much convinced about the ongoing discussions: Composer yes/Composer no, Backend yes/Backend no, GPLv3 yes GPLv3 no, which PSR, etc., etc...

I'm with Beat: we should start from product goals (i.e. not implementation goals) and there should be someone (OSM?) at the helm of this process.

The risk is to project to the "outside world" a very bad perception of where Joomla is going. I'd dare to say that the risk is to project to the "outside world" the perception that we are somehow panicking and really don't know where to head. This could be a fatal blow to Joomla.

My personal opinion is that if you and other developers who are willing to design a new CMS architecture and propose it to be the "next Joomla", should do that in a more discreet way, through  direct personal relationships, and come to the Joomla community at large if and when you'll have a more concrete, solid, proposal.

On the other hand I think that a discussion started and handled by a "Product Management" group about future directions (product specifications) could have a very positive impact about how the Joomla community is perceived moving forward.

Last (and not so much important) I would like to underline that in my opinion "Icarus" (as a name) is probably not the best choice for a project: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

Regards,

Sergio

On 2014-07-31 15:18, Nils Rückmann wrote:

Please use the repository (https://github.com/joomla-projects/icarus) for icarus related discussion to stay focused.

[Nils Rückmann]

Am Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014 16:07:04 UTC+2 schrieb Sergio Manzi:

Niels, I think everybody has already got your point, that you would like the discussion about "a new Joomla" to be held on Github's project Icarus repo.

I do want "a new Joomla", but that's not why i'm repeating myself. I just want to have ONE place where the discussion about Joomla's future can happen.
 

Personally I've lurked into the repo discussion and I have to say that I'm not very much convinced about the ongoing discussions: Composer yes/Composer no, Backend yes/Backend no, GPLv3 yes GPLv3 no, which PSR, etc., etc...

We have to start somewhere... And i've created topics like this, because without them they would be taken in every single conversation instead of one focused discussion.
 

I'm with Beat: we should start from product goals (i.e. not implementation goals) and there should be someone (OSM?) at the helm of this process.

See topics like "[Discussion] Goal and Vision" or "[Proposal] Maybe a vision?". WHy should OSM define the goals for Joomla ? As far as i know Joomla should be community driven. So give a chance for the community to discuss it.

 

The risk is to project to the "outside world" a very bad perception of where Joomla is going. I'd dare to say that the risk is to project to the "outside world" the perception that we are somehow panicking and really don't know where to head. This could be a fatal blow to Joomla.

I don't know your world, but the world i know is moving away from Joomla. Either to less complicated systems like Wordpress or technical better solutions.

My personal opinion is that if you and other developers who are willing to design a new CMS architecture and propose it to be the "next Joomla", should do that in a more discreet way, through  direct personal relationships, and come to the Joomla community at large if and when you'll have a more concrete, solid, proposal.

It wasn't me who created "Icarus" and defining the road.
 

On the other hand I think that a discussion started and handled by a "Product Management" group about future directions (product specifications) could have a very positive impact about how the Joomla community is perceived moving forward.

FullACK as long as the "Product Management" is elected by our community and stand up for their ineterests.

 

Last (and not so much important) I would like to underline that in my opinion "Icarus" (as a name) is probably not the best choice for a project: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

That's the first thing i said when i've seen the repository. Who the hell did pick that ?

Regards,
Nils

[Leo Lammerink]

@Paul
With all respect for me a survey like this won't make sense as has shown from last time. Nothing was done with it and we wasted energy and effort. I appreciate the "community feeling" but let's face facts.... Depending on the survey's questions you will get answers "we need a poll" or" we need to follow Wordpress" etc etc.... Sorry I have not seen responses last time but me personally do not believe in these kinds of community polls despite probably be very democratic. I rather would see CLT/PLT/BugSquad/Translators/Moderators/OSM/CMS-list/name them who are listed join forces and than you have a couple of hundred people with knowledge and understanding of Joomla who will be definitely be to make good judgement though it will be a horrendous coordinating effort to reach consensus

I know I might post against the basics of Open Source bit let's be very pragmatic here?

--

Leo Lammerink
MD GWS - Enterprise Ltd
Skype: gwsgroup
www.gws-desk.com | www.gws-host.com | www.gws-deals.today

[Sergio Manzi]

I forgot to mention that IMHO backward compatibility for 3.x extensions (even if through an adaptation layer) is of paramount importance: if not, man, there are a lot of nice CMSs out there!

I'm tempted to push this concept even further: probably we should commit to extensions BC compatibility for every major-1 revision: Joomla 4 should handle 3.x extensions no problem. Joomla 5 should handle 4.x extensions no problem, and so on. This is the way to have extensions developers to commit to Joomla.

smz

[Nils Rückmann]

For whom you are a talking ? For extension developers or endusers ?
Endusers don't care about B/C as long as they can migrate without pain.
And extension developers should be happy if we provide an adequate codebase. If an extension developer don't like it, he might by one those who is filling the JED with crap. I know it sounds harsh, but if we are honest we have to admit that more than 50% in the JED is build without real technical knowledge. Surprisingly, commercial extensions are not better than free ones.

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2014-07-31 16:34, Nils Rückmann wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014 16:07:04 UTC+2 schrieb Sergio Manzi:

Niels, I think everybody has already got your point, that you would like the discussion about "a new Joomla" to be held on Github's project Icarus repo.

I do want "a new Joomla", but that's not why i'm repeating myself. I just want to have ONE place where the discussion about Joomla's future can happen.

Do you know what is this list charter is? "This list is for discussions around building the Joomla! CMS. If you want to help please join us." So, why go to GitHub???

Personally I've lurked into the repo discussion and I have to say that I'm not very much convinced about the ongoing discussions: Composer yes/Composer no, Backend yes/Backend no, GPLv3 yes GPLv3 no, which PSR, etc., etc...

We have to start somewhere... And i've created topics like this, because without them they would be taken in every single conversation instead of one focused discussion.

Forgive me, but "We have to start somewhere" doesn't yield a sense of "clear vision", unless the only vision we have is "We must do something else we are fucked!"

I'm with Beat: we should start from product goals (i.e. not implementation goals) and there should be someone (OSM?) at the helm of this process.

See topics like "[Discussion] Goal and Vision" or "[Proposal] Maybe a vision?". WHy should OSM define the goals for Joomla ? As far as i know Joomla should be community driven. So give a chance for the community to discuss it.

I've seen it. The topics handled are "Target group", "Technology", "Quality/testing", "Framework" and "Timeline": hardly a Product marketing POW, in my opinion.
OSM is the governance body for Joomla, if I'm not mistaken.

 

The risk is to project to the "outside world" a very bad perception of where Joomla is going. I'd dare to say that the risk is to project to the "outside world" the perception that we are somehow panicking and really don't know where to head. This could be a fatal blow to Joomla.

I don't know your world, but the world i know is moving away from Joomla. Either to less complicated systems like Wordpress or technical better solutions.

Yes, I perfectly now. I need to make a living out of my web related activities and I'm teaching myself Drupal these days.

My personal opinion is that if you and other developers who are willing to design a new CMS architecture and propose it to be the "next Joomla", should do that in a more discreet way, through  direct personal relationships, and come to the Joomla community at large if and when you'll have a more concrete, solid, proposal.

It wasn't me who created "Icarus" and defining the road.

Maybe it is time to see if this is a good road...

 

On the other hand I think that a discussion started and handled by a "Product Management" group about future directions (product specifications) could have a very positive impact about how the Joomla community is perceived moving forward.

FullACK as long as the "Product Management" is elected by our community and stand up for their ineterests.

Of course. There are (or there should be) rules about if/when/and how to create such a body.

 

Last (and not so much important) I would like to underline that in my opinion "Icarus" (as a name) is probably not the best choice for a project: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

That's the first thing i said when i've seen the repository. Who the hell did pick that ?

Can't remember, but it is definitely an "ill fated" choice and probably somebody "out there" is already joking about it...

Regards,
Nils

Cheers!

Sergio

[Sergio Manzi]

For extension developers, so that they know the hard work they are doing will pay off in a reasonable time.

[Sergio Manzi]

ah, WTF!, do you know what is one of the first pages that pops out if you Google for "Joomla Project Icarus"?

It is http://www.icarus.mobi/ and the first thing you read in it is:

This page is transformed from Joomla to WordPress, but I’ll change it to a Drupal-site in a while, Joomla is out of settings, not good enough imo, wp doesn’t have the bits and pieces I need, too simple….

Someone should learn some basic marketing principles...

smz

[Nils Rückmann]

Am Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014 17:02:45 UTC+2 schrieb Sergio Manzi:

Do you know what is this list charter is? "This list is for discussions around building the Joomla! CMS. If you want to help please join us." So, why go to GitHub???

I don't care if its a mailing list, Github or something else. Im just thinking that we need a common ground and apparently someone how is in charge and have the rights to create a repositoy in the name of Joomla decided to use Github.

 

Forgive me, but "We have to start somewhere" doesn't yield a sense of "clear vision", unless the only vision we have is "We must do something else we are fucked!"

In order to create a vision we need to discuss our personal vision and find mutual goals. Your're right. Some topics like licencing is no that important to create a vision. But composer for example is more than a technical widget. It's a vision of interoperability and we have to decide if we share it.

I've seen it. The topics handled are "Target group", "Technology", "Quality/testing", "Framework" and "Timeline": hardly a Product marketing POW, in my opinion

That's the opinion of one individual which will be discussed and maybe merged with other ideas. In this topic we want to speak about the vision of Joomla. If you want to share your opinion then do it or wait for a real discussion (more than ONE opinion) where you can point finger on.

OSM is the governance body for Joomla, if I'm not mistaken.

 
OSM is legally neccessary. But AFAIK Joomla is still community driven. Or should we correct that and communicate in public that Joomla is no longer community driven and now a corporate property.

 Yes, I perfectly now. I need to make a living out of my web related activities and I'm teaching myself Drupal these days.

Guess what, i do Joomla for living too. And it would be alot easier to make money with another system like Typo3. Bue hey, sometimes money is not the first priority.
 

Maybe it is time to see if this is a good road...

Well, if you have an idea all people would love to hear it. If you don not have an opinion about the future of Joomla it's fine too. But do not blame others for things which happend while you lying back.

 Of course. There are (or there should be) rules about if/when/and how to create such a body.

Finally, a point were we can both agree to.

[Sergio Manzi]

Niels,

I'm not going to answer again point-to-point, but I have some more considerations:

I DO care about where e discussion about the future of Joomla is held, and this should be the place. A repo discussion is about discussing code "Issues" (this is how it is called on GitHub).

As you personally accuse me of "blaming others while lying back", please have a look at the "Considerations about "The Joomla Roadmap"" thread of which I'm the OP. There are also interesting bits about the future of Joomla in the "Joomla and Twitter Bootstrap 3.x" thread. Have a look at that too...

Have a nice day!

Sergio

[Nils Rückmann]

Sergio,

i'm not sure about Github either, but a main benefit is having "code" and discussion in one place. Which is a good thing as "code" can also be documentation.

I didn't want to accuse you personally and especially not in general. Maybe i'm just frustrated because i have never seen the "huge community" which Joomla claims to have.

[Sergio Manzi]

No problem, Niels, no offense taken! But, really, give a look at those two threads: I think you will find them interesting.

As far as GitHub, IMHO it would be the perfect place if and when, after thorough discussion and reaching consensus on what to write for, the first lines of code will have been written.

Take care!

[Sergio Manzi]

Sorry I just realized I always mistyped your name, Nils!

[Bakual]

PLT decided to create a repo as an experimental playground/lab for those who want to share code and try proof of concepts and the like.

It wasn't meant as the single point of discussion.

This list is fine for discussing the next (or the one after the next) version of Joomla. The GitHub repo is also fine for discussing it.

[Bakual]

Please use either the repo or this list. Either are fine.

The only thing which isn't fine is fights between people. Keep it constructive :)

Am Mittwoch, 30. Juli 2014 22:51:47 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Rückmann:

[Sergio Manzi]

Hi Bakual!

On 2014-07-31 22:57, Bakual wrote:

Please use either the repo or this list. Either are fine.

The only thing which isn't fine is fights between people. Keep it constructive :)

If in any way you are referring to the different opinions expressed by Nils and myself, I sincerely wouldn't call that "a fight"...

Am Mittwoch, 30. Juli 2014 22:51:47 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Rückmann:

Please use the repository (https://github.com/joomla-projects/icarus) to stay focused.

--

Regards,

Sergio

[Nils Rückmann]

Am Freitag, 1. August 2014 01:19:01 UTC+2 schrieb Sergio Manzi:

If in any way you are referring to the different opinions expressed by Nils and myself, I sincerely wouldn't call that "a fight"...

Thanks ;) FullACK.

IMO we (the whole community) should have more discussion which ends in a mutual consent.

[Mathew Lenning]

Once again I feel that everyone has missed the point. Icarus IS NOT THE NEXT JOOMLA! Let me repeat that one more time Icarus IS NOT THE NEXT JOOMLA! It isn't Joomla 4.x, it isn't Joomla! next. IT ISN'T JOOMLA!

This isn't the discussion about the future of Joomla.  

This is the problem with the Joomla community. Everyone is so dam opinionated about "WE NEED THIS", "WE MUST HAVE THIS", "WE MUST DO THIS", etc.. etc... etc... 

The end result is that while everyone is busy arguing about imperfection in an imperfect world, the rest of the world is moving on. 

I would ask that the PLT make an official announcement that any code contributed to the Icarus project WILL NOT BE USED in Joomla 4.0 or Joomla next or whatever. 

Then what is the point? The point is to harvest ideas, not code. But not just any ideas. As anyone that keeps up on the over opinionated and under productive conversations on this list  forum knows, we have a lot of ideas already. 

Icarus is a chance to harvest PROVEN ideas. From people that actually take the time to validate the idea with code, documentation, and executed effort, as supposed to abstract theory of application development, and 5 minutes at the keyboard.

So what is the difference between what we are currently doing and Icarus? 

Examples from this conversation.

Example #1:

Idea = "There should be a PM (Joomla CMS Product Management) workgroup, which talks with marketing, support and development groups as well as with leadership, and which is not only composed of pure developers, but should certainly include UX people. (To create a vision)"

Current method = Sounds great!...... 3 months later "Anyone create that PM workgroup yet?"

Icarus = "Hey I got together with some people from the marketing, development, and leadership groups to discuss the future of Joomla. This is our vision written out into a well structured application document."

Example #2:

Idea = "To help create a vision for the next version of Joomla, I would suggest publishing a survey to gather ideas from the community."

Current method = Argue about the validity of surveys, because "Depending on the survey's questions you will get answers "we need a poll" or" we need to follow Wordpress" etc etc...."

Icarus = "I created a survey to gather ideas from the community, take a look at the questions. If you think of any that I missed let me know."

Example #3:

Idea = "What we should be doing is talking together about the features we want to have - because that will help define the code we need to get there."

Current method = ........................................................................................................................................................

Icarus = "Here is a list of features that I want, Here is some POC code that shows this can be done with Joomla. I had to change this, this and this, but it is doable."

The reality is talk is cheap. The Joomla community already does enough talking. Icarus is about cutting all the BS that has kept Joomla from moving forward and executing your idea. Don't talk about it, do it. 

Now I can hear half of you saying, "But if it isn't going to be included, its a waste of time!". Yep, so don't waste your time, go do something else. If you are not willing to invest in proving your idea is worth inclusion, then it is just noise we don't need anyway.

[Andrew Eddie]

Example #4
Idea: We should use traits from PHP 5.4
Current method: You can't because Joomla has to aim for the lowest
common denominator for hosts and it's bad enough that we lifted to
5.3.10.
Icarus: Traits are COOL!

Matthew I completely agree except to say I do think harvesting code
ideas, patterns, design strategies, etc can be part of what Icarus is
(particularly when talking about things that are just impossible to
discuss on this list, like PHP 5.4). If reinvention is not possible
for Icarus, then Icarus is not for me :)

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Mathew Lenning]

@Andrew

Reinvent away my friend. 

There shouldn't' be any rule that says you have to do it in PHP 5.3 or any other version. 

Especially if PLT would make that announcement I requested.

If we really want to see the full spectrum of possibilities, the person executing the idea should be the only one placing restrictions on it. 

 

On a side note, I've been looking at traits and I definitely see the potential. I'm not using them yet, but I've just started to work out the details of my vision. 

[Beat]

Bakual +1 on no persons fights, that's the most important part. Thanks for the reminder!

Joomla has a bright past, a bright present, and a bright future. Shaping publicly and openly its future, allowing everyone to contribute his vision, is not something that we should be shy of. To the contrary, it's a big differentiator and something we can be proud of.

Obviously everyone has a different vision on what Icarus is and what should be done and what is good or not good (e.g. Traits can be nice but also bad). My understanding is that it's a bazar from which the next most beautiful cathedrals might emerge, lol !

Happy thinking and talking and happy coding!

Best Regards,
Beat
http://www.joomlapolis.com/

[Mathew Lenning]

@Andrew,

Just reread your post. If the PLT says it will NOT use the code and something so good comes out of it that they do decides to use it. 

My hope would be that no one would actually complain. I mean good code is self evident right.

Sincerely,

Mathew Lenning

Babel-university.com

P.S. This message was sent via iPhone, so please forgive any errors

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/joomla-dev-cms/0VURcwpRu2I/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Eddie]

On 1 August 2014 10:14, Mathew Lenning <> wrote:
> @Andrew,
>
> Just reread your post. If the PLT says it will NOT use the code and
> something so good comes out of it that they do decides to use it.

I think it would be better for them to say they have no idea what the
outcome will be. I'd be happy with a disclaimer that there's no
guarantee any code produced can be immediately used in the context of
the CMS, but that all reasonable proposals will be considered at the
end of the day, whenever that actually is.

Regards,
Andrew Eddie

[Mathew Lenning]

@Andrew,

I'm really not qualified to determine what the PLT needs to say. So instead I'll try to explain how I'm approaching this project. 

I have a vision that I'm coding. From my previous attempt at contributing my code to the project, any presumption that this code might actually be included in Joomla has been eliminated. 

My current view of the process, suggests that what gets included is more about WHO coded it that what was coded. But that is a complaint for a different thread. 

Since I've decided that this code won't be included by default, there are two questions that need to be answered

Q: Why would I code it?

A: Because I think it is a good idea worth the effort. The current Joomla! CMS makes it impossible to create quality extensions without creating crappy code or creating yet another custom lib. If it does get included, then I will have helped Joomla move closer to its true potential and make my life as an extension developer better.   

Q: Will it be a waste of time?

A: If my only goal was inclusion in Joomla, then not being included would mean that it was indeed a waste of time. However since my goal has always been to fix all the problems I know about in Joomla, if the IDEAS that I prove can fix them, don't get included then I will have created a solution that is like Joomla, but without all the problems. Which is really what the market needs. It might sound treasonous, but if Joomla! (the community and the code) won't evolve, then I fully intend to fork it and re-brand under a different banner.

Who knows maybe some external pressure from a project fork will be just the kick Joomla needs to stop listing to the BS and start taking action. Pagekit, OctoberCMS, and the many others that are popping up don't seem to be enough.

[Bakual]

It was just a general statement :)

Am Freitag, 1. August 2014 01:19:01 UTC+2 schrieb Sergio Manzi:

[Bakual]

I'd go with Andrews definition. The code may or may not end up in a new Joomla.

[Paul Orwig]

@Leo - It's fine if you disagree with the idea of a survey, but please don't try and defend your position by saying incorrect things like "... this won't make sense as has shown from last time. Nothing was done with it and we wasted energy and effort."

As I mentioned yesterday, the results from the previous survey were used as one of the main inputs for defining 2013 overall project goals:

http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leadership/1730-2013-overall-project-goals.html

A lot of good work was accomplished toward those overall project goals in 2013, and has continued into this year. It was also a positive example of the project reaching out to and interacting with the community.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.

[Leo Lammerink]

@ Paul,
I reacted on this so forgive my ignorance but I did not nor do I see anywhere in your post that the results were used. I am glad that the results were used however I think if OSM publishes a survey than the results should be shared with the Community me think.So I never could have known that the results were used in such good way to move forward with the Project Goals. If you would have mentioned it in your initial post I would not have posted the reply for sure. Thanks for clarifying the actual meaning of your yesterday's post :)

@ Matthew

I think you make valid points but if I think that a survey is not useful I am suppose to say as you provide in your examples: Thank you for the survey and I will look at your questions? Sorry Icarus does not robs me of my opinion and if I am not allowed to express my opinion on certain things than this entire Icarus makes no sense to me. Imho you use my remarks as an example which example might be valid for people but not for me

[Mathew Lenning]

@Leo 

You are free to have your opinion, but Icarus isn't about opinions. It is about execution. Also I quoted you because those types of conjecture are what we are trying to avoid. If Paul wants to do a survey, why shouldn't he? Because you think it is a waste of time? 

The point here is that everyone is free to DO what they think is the best course of action. Not talking about the best course of action, but actually doing it. Because the difference between thinking it is a bad idea and actually knowing it is a bad idea is figured out when you actually try to execute the idea.

This is something we just cannot do in Joomla!, because when a mistake is made, the whole community suffers. But Icarus isn't Joomla! 

It is obvious that you took offense to being quoted. Please understand that it was not my intention. 

[Mathew Lenning]

BTW I created a survey =^P 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CX67LXR

If you have a few moments, your participation would be greatly appreciated. 

[Andrew Thomas]

in·teg·ri·ty, ;)

[Leo Lammerink]

@ Matthew I missed your reply. Sorry for belated reaction therefor.

I appreciate your entry point of "do things instead of Talking endless" I actually like that very much. Wish that our Leadership would be on that same bandwagon....so yes a good initiative

However re. surveys and my opinions.....I have clear thoughts about these kind of surveys and it's reliability. I am very clearly allowed to have my own thoughts about these and you are not in the position to render my thoughts as "conjecture". You and everybody can make a survey so go ahead, make as many as you can think of. Many people make a living of polling....... Though I do not feel that any surveys in the oh so versatile J- community are useful and beneficial, especially when the results of such community-polls are not shared with that community but are kept in the inner circles of OSM/CLT/PLT etc without posting in advance that such a poll (which is just a real-life example.....) is a poll to gather information that won't be shared.

@ Andrew Thomas: what contribution are you trying to make? Problems with your keyboard? ;-)

Cheers

--

Leo Lammerink
MD GWS - Enterprise Ltd
Skype: gwsgroup
www.gws-desk.com | www.gws-host.com | www.gws-deals.today

[Sergio Manzi]

In the survey:

"... As system integraty decreases, ..."

[Mathew Lenning]

Thanks. I wrote that @ 3a.m. Will change tomorrow. 

Sincerely,

Mathew Lenning

Babel-university.com

P.S. This message was sent via iPhone, so please forgive any errors

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/joomla-dev-cms/0VURcwpRu2I/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.

[Sergio Manzi]

No problem!

[Robert G Mears]

The question of a new poll/survey was raised some time ago:

POLL to determine the breadth and scope of Joomla CMS in the real world

Andrew Eddie started this group:

Surveys Working Group for the Joomla Project.

But nothing has happened with it.

Robert

[Nils Rückmann]

Well, it looks like Joomla-Icarus didn't even try to fly.

[Mathew Lenning]

I'm still here =^P. We just decided that placing it on Joomla property wasn't worth the panic that it caused. 

Sincerely,
Mathew Lenning

Babel-University.com
406-626-3251
LinkedIn Profile

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Nils Rückmann <syb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, it looks like Joomla-Icarus didn't even try to fly.

--

[Nils Rückmann]

Who decided to do what ? Are there still people "onboard" for creating a better codebase ?