[feedhenry-dev] mobile client or mobile app

[Paul Wright]

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
> Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile 
> app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of 
> the mcp UI and CLI.
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <pwright at redhat.com 
> <mailto:pwright at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace
>     the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone,
>     smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'
>
>     Paul
>
>     my original draft reply:
>
>     Mondays...
>
>     Let's fix everything <sigh>
>
>     I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of
>     caution:
>
>     1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure,
>     there's a command, and even some doc references
>     (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates
>     <https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates>),
>     but would like to check with them before assuming that's
>     deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit
>     more of an enterprisey term.
>
>     2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a
>     generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to
>     embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to
>     something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client
>     app'.
>
>
>
>
>
>     On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
>>     Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term
>>     alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile
>>     Client may be a clearer distinction.
>>
>>     Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.
>>
>>     On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes
>>     <cbrookes at redhat.com <mailto:cbrookes at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term
>>         mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term
>>         mobile client instead.
>>         The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side
>>         component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for
>>         example). I think it would make a clearer distinction.
>>         Another example is around the word build. When you do an app
>>         build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a
>>         running server / app. I think using the the term mobile
>>         client build makes it clearer what is happening.
>>
>>         Just a thought for a Monday morning.
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Craig Brookes
>>         RHMAP
>>         @maleck13 Github
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         feedhenry-dev mailing list
>>         feedhenry-dev at redhat.com <mailto:feedhenry-dev at redhat.com>
>>         https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
>>         <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Jason Madigan
>>     Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Craig Brookes
> RHMAP
> @maleck13 Github

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/attachments/20171129/028f4a0a/attachment.htm>