Friday, 25 April 2014
[14:14:15] RK: hey there
[14:14:27] FI: hi, how are you?
[14:14:53] FI: i just came back this wednesday, still jet-lagged and that's why awake at this time :)
[14:15:23] RK: i am good.
[14:20:53] RK: have you had a chance to read my e-mail on separating out the different efforts?
[14:21:27] FI: yes I did and I replied already.
[14:21:35] RK: k
[14:22:01] RK: we have to catch up with ourselves here...
[14:22:18] FI: yes that's right
[14:22:56] RK: ok. i am seeing some confusion...
[14:23:04] RK:
> When you say legacy-bridge, you mean WebObjects classes reimplemented with
> TreasureBoat API right?
[14:23:29] FI: yeah that's what I understood from Ken's initial meeting
[14:23:40] FI: and then later on discussed at restaurant
[14:23:41] RK: The legacy-bridge project is the WebObjects classes reimplmented with
the WebObjects API. That is precisely their point.
[14:24:04] RK: we are implementing functionality to the legacy API.
[14:24:21] FI: you mean reverse engineering and remove the bottlenecks from their own code?
[14:24:35] RK: this is not to be a great leap forward, but to provide a base to stand on
that does not have posion IP restrictions.
[14:25:04] RK: just reverse engineer. Presumably we want to do a good job but that is not the point.
[14:25:54] RK: As a separate effort, we can have wonder be runnable on some other base,
not the API of the WebObjects frameworks. I think that this is what i understand your suggestion to be.
[14:25:58] FI: okay that's why you wanted to use java agent to replace classes at runtime
[14:26:02] RK: yes.
[14:26:21] FI: got it
[14:26:52] RK: the problem with completely replacing WO as a base is that one must have
the other solution completely implemented.
[14:27:09] FI: I understand
[14:27:37] RK: by the way, I may want to put the transcript of this up on the wiki, subject
to your agreement, of course.
14:28:47] RK: well, but the point of it is _not_ to do an update. It is to give us a clean copy
of the old ugly.
[14:28:59] FI: ok
[14:29:20] RK: I like that. "the old ugly" sums it up well
[14:29:35] FI: do you need any help from me to do the cleansing.
[14:29:40] FI: let me know
[14:30:18] FI: why not name it "good-bad-ugly" ;)
[14:30:52] RK: well, the legacy-bridge effort will be just adding impls to the java_ files
and renaming them, as done, to "java". if you are ok with the contributor's agreement we will have,
any help would be appreciated.
[14:31:05] FI: it works good, implemented bad and code is ugly :D
[14:31:25] FI: sure, I can
[14:31:35] FI: i can help you write any kind of java code
[14:31:52] FI: as well as reverse engineering of the logic
[14:36:14] FI: I'm more than happy to help you guys in my spare time
[14:36:40] RK: so, you have run WO or Wonder apps on java8, yes?
[14:37:00] FI: Not really on a server
[14:37:09] RK: GBU? The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? :-/
[14:37:35] RK: GBU kind of seems to work for me....
[14:37:52] FI: I had java8 for some time on my machine but the guys where facing problems
compiling the code I commit
[14:38:02] FI: so I had to switch to java7
[14:38:34] FI: GBU is better
[14:38:39] RK: yep. you would have had to set your javac options back to the oldest JDK being used.
[14:38:45] FI: legacy-bridge just confused me
[14:38:49] RK: :-)
[14:39:01] FI: and that's why there was so many ideas overflowing on the list
[14:39:19] RK: i will send the e-mail announcing GBU in a minute. have to go soon. an errand to run.
[14:39:29] FI: sure
[14:39:38] FI: ttyl
[14:40:58] FI: whenever you find time, let me know which WOLips branch should I work on to
recompile for Kepler.