[feedhenry-dev] mobile client or mobile app
Paul Wright
pwright at redhat.com
Thu Nov 30 11:05:31 UTC 2017
last comment, then I'll stop (promise):
Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time
about the definition.
I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of
UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and
center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.
Can we be more explicit and give an example?
- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall
mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)
Paul
On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> +1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation" -
> and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <davmarti at redhat.com
> <mailto:davmarti at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the
> Kubernetes world.
> Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g.
> Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.
>
> In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
> "PushApplication
> A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"
>
> I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client'
> and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
> "MobileClient
> A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"
>
> [1]
> https://aerogear.org/docs/unifiedpush/ups_userguide/index/#_useful_terminology
> <https://aerogear.org/docs/unifiedpush/ups_userguide/index/#_useful_terminology>
>
> On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <pwright at redhat.com
> <mailto:pwright at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Martin
> Red Hat Mobile
> Twitter: @irldavem
> IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Project lead AeroGear.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/attachments/20171130/9d6725fc/attachment.htm>
More information about the feedhenry-dev
mailing list