[Mailman-Developers] Javascript Client for Mailman
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Mar 26 03:05:26 CET 2015
Florian Fuchs writes:
> The intended audience are folks who use JS, so I'd rather not have
> a client that runs on node but looks like Python. :-)
+1
> > 2. I'd also like to make part of the project, a node.js application
> > that uses the Mailman Javascript client and offers all the
> > functionality Postorious does. Is that a good idea?
Florian addressed "attainability", but I'd like to say that I don't
see that we need another Postorius. If you want to go in that
direction, you'd have to address the question "why does this
application want to (mostly) run disconnected?"
I think the answer is that it doesn't. It's quite reasonable for all
of the logic in Postorius to be server-side. That's not to say that
having it client-side wouldn't work just as well or maybe even a
little bit better, but we already have Postorius. An alternative set
of functionality *not* in Postorius (the user dashboard might be a
good one) would be better, and an application that "needs" to run
client-side to be sufficiently responsive would be the best showcase
for your "javascript.client".
> What you could do though is add an *optional* task to your timeline,
> building a *very small* and stripped down web ui proof of concept,
> with only a small handful of features that you can use to demonstrate
> how to integrate the client. But that shouldn't be worked on before
> anything else has been finished.
I understand what Florian is saying and I don't disagree, but let me
offer an alternative perspective for discussion. Build the small
app's UI first, and use that as a testbed use case for the javascript
side API that you're building. APIs need use cases (consider how
TCP/IP "rough consensus and running code" beat OSI's "a priori design
and engineering" for internetworking). I don't know that this is a
practical approach. Just sayin'.
More information about the Mailman-Developers
mailing list