Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@smizell
Copy link
Contributor

@smizell smizell commented Aug 29, 2015

This document outlines some things we should consider as we move Refract to production environments.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

1.0.0 if we're using server 😉.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, yes, I was lazy :) I'll change.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could also have a separate repo for each of these, if necessary.

@pksunkara
Copy link
Contributor

I think we need to address the things mentioned in the RFC as part of 1.0.0. But I don't think we need to be hasty about it. I would like to have a bit more time and try refract in production first internally at Apiary so that we can change any breaking stuff first before moving to 1.0.0

For now, let's leave this PR as it is once everyone reviews it and keep adding to this if we come up with more stuff for 1.0.0

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is currently being proposed in #22 as a way to move toward using hyperlinking instead of namespacing like this.

This does not mean we remove the current namespaces. It does mean that the namespace functionality in the current spec will be removed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did #30 address this for you @smizell?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also saw #31.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I think #30 resolves this. Will update.

@smizell
Copy link
Contributor Author

smizell commented Nov 25, 2015

There are three things in this spec to accomplish. Namespacing is being discussed in another RFC and the other two are simply reorganizing some files. I propose we do these three things, yet still wait on moving completely to 1.0.0.

If that works, I'll rework this RFC a bit to align with that idea and we can work on these few changes.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have moved the discussion to here:
#34

@pksunkara
Copy link
Contributor

@smizell This needs to be updated.

@smizell smizell force-pushed the smizell/refract-1.0 branch from a400b99 to e8a3629 Compare May 2, 2016 20:07
@pksunkara
Copy link
Contributor

The serialisation has been done. And there is an issue tracking the inheritance on the Refract Spec. So, should we close this PR?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants