[Freedombox-discuss] Working Groups
On 07/15/2011 12:45 AM, Henri Asseily wrote:
> To me, the architecture of the software should be one that is heavily abstracted, with everything as a service with API entrypoints, and service configuration being automatic (think zeroconf). Therefore, necessitating thoughtful consideration as to what/how/where that core user-centric config data should reside.
>
I agree, and add my 2 cents: the group should define "standard" API for
different needings.
A shared API for microblogging (built after Status.net?), a shared API
for feed readers (built after TinyTinyRSS?), a shared API for media
galleries (built after Gallery3?)...
Once we have essential sets of common functions and formats we should
engage existing open projects to implement them, so to make them
interoperable. And while the super-cool-integrated-and-usable FreedomBox
stack is built, the not-so-cool-but-already-existing stack of free web
applications can spread faster across the Internet.
--
Roberto -MadBob- Guido
http://claimid.com/madbob
Reply to: