future plans

[expressjs]

future plans

[dougwilson]

We should work on number 3 as the first item for now, because it needed to be done regardless of anything that may have happened this week.

[jonathanong]

so i took https://github.com/webules, but i was intending it for es6 web modules. is that an okay name?

[dougwilson]

lol, "webules" sounds "cute". I'm impartial to the name, but we should probably not reference "node" directly in it for future-proofing.

[mikermcneil]

i'm finally about to get back in irc guys if you're still around, sorry about bouncing earlier

[Fishrock123]

js-web-framework-utils is the most descriptive, but we should probably use a shorter name?

[jonathanong]

to be descriptive, you'll need backend somewhere there too h aha

[Fishrock123]

these aren't all mutually exclusive, but i want 3) just for code organization. there are a lot of TJ's web modules that he didn't feel like transferring here because they weren't exactly express related. we could fork and continue maintaining them in this organization.

This does sound like the best course of action now. Should we end up useing expressjs only for middleware then? or anything that is specifically for express?

to be descriptive, you'll need backend somewhere there too h aha

Technically these things could conceivably run in the browser in the future but I have no idea why you'd want them to.

[mikermcneil]

Middleware could be "connect"

[jonathanong]

but that's senchalabs... don't feel like having more issues with corporations. hahaha

[dougwilson]

If express stuff does not get resolved, we can figure out a new naming for things, rather than picking up old ones just so the community doesn't encounter some issue.

[Fishrock123]

I say we put middleware in middlescript haha

[jonathanong]

httpjs or httpsjs? it doesn't specify that it's backend, but frontend http stuff is usually referred to as AJAX

[Fishrock123]

httpjs seems insecure and httpsjs looks silly haha.

tcpjs! (lol..., I'm +1 for the former over the latter)

EDIT: chiper (irc) suggested jshttp which seems better.

[jonathanong]

tcp doesn't accurately describe it becasue all the modules deal with the http layer

[Twipped]

Echoing my comments in IRC

Naming an organization foojs creates the implication of foo.js, and thus being attached to a specific library, just like expressjs is.

jsfoo, however, creates the implication of JS libraries for performing foo.

Thus, jshttp would be a more appropriate name.

[dougwilson]

I like jshttp or jsweb or such, though http is pretty better (remember, https is just http over a secure transport, and spdy is just http/2, so I think it works).

[mikermcneil]

Not necessarily http-only though cc @dougwilson

Mike's phone

On Jul 31, 2014, at 17:53, Jarvis Badgley [email protected] wrote:

Echoing my comments in IRC

Naming an organization foojs creates the implication of foo.js, and thus being attached to a specific library, just like expressjs is.

jsfoo, however, creates the implication of JS libraries for performing foo.

Thus, jshttp would be a more appropriate name.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[dougwilson]

Well, non-http libs can simply live somewhere else :) We don't need an enormous org, we can have many smaller orgs.

[Fishrock123]

Enormous orgs become even more confusing. Expressjs is actually getting a little large imo haha

Edit: what chiper said below

[Twipped]

It's a shame github doesn't let you organize repos into folders...

[dead-horse]

prefer jsweb than jshttp

[mikermcneil]

@sgress454: "sexpress"

[jonathanong]

@mikermcneil sold. strongloop would never attempt to acquire that

[jonathanong]

"poopback"

[jonathanong]

"strongpoop"

[jonathanong]

"hapenis"

[Fishrock123]

web-framework

[mikermcneil]

"poopback"

👍

[Fishrock123]

js-backend-node-web-http-middleware-stack-framework
does what it says on the tin!

not-express
nextpress ( @jonathanong )

[mikermcneil]

All jokes aside, re:

piggy back on another framework like sails. like how express ditched connect, sails could ditch express, and we could try to make it more modular. or we could just move all the express stuff to a sails org or something.

While I'm flattered, IMO it would be weird to call this stuff sails because there would be this mental association with MVC that wouldn't make sense. But as @jonathanong said, I think we should focus on organizing things in the way that's most descriptive about what it does, how it works etc.

It seems to me that the roadmap for the core of Sails, minus the 20-odd hooks, is pretty close to what is planned for the v5 version here. And I'm 100% on board for helping out and sharing as much of that code/effort as we possibly can. Makes no sense to do the same thing twice

I put some thoughts together on that here

[dead-horse]

so the goal of this org is to help people write their own web frameworks without express? :D

[Fishrock123]

Basically, but also help make existing web frameworks better.

[jonathanong]

So what about jsweb? Not down with http because I want to put stuff like templating there

[dead-horse]

+1 for jsweb

[mikermcneil]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Jsweb

[Fishrock123]

+1 jshttp

[dougwilson]

I'm for jshttp

[mikermcneil]

node-www
js-www

I think I like "jsweb" the most viscerally

[sgress454]

Bit on the nose, innit? Have we considered the Underscore vs. Lodash route? Like, "Rapid JS"? Or "Accelerate JS"? "Nonstop JS"? "Forward JS"? Or, using a different definition, "Convey JS"?

[dougwilson]

I think @Fishrock123 pointed out Googling for "jshttp" returns basically nothing, compared to the others. This is also a name specifically for the little http-utilities we make, nothing more :)

[mikermcneil]

npm install stepdad

[Fishrock123]

@sgress454 I think you are getting ahead of yourself, we don't need to rush anything. :P

[sgress454]

@Fishrock123 hmm good point. Maybe "Deliberate JS" or "Patience JS".

[mikermcneil]

@sgress454 haha

[defunctzombie]

Can we not come up with something without js in the name?

Alternatively. Expressjs is probably available on npm. ROFL.

[Twipped]

Are we still talking about the organization, or did you all move on to a new framework name?

I was serious about percolate :)

[dougwilson]

@ChiperSoft this is supposed to just be the name of the organization for the http utils, like accept, mime-types, type-is, finished, on-headers, etc.

[Twipped]

Curveball suggestion: CarrierPigeon (JS suffix optional)

It identifies the organization as being related to data transmission, but doesn't limit it to http and lacks any implication of browser side code.

[dougwilson]

but doesn't limit it to http

There's no reason to think it should be only http; moving to non-http stuff can simply be... another GH org! yay!

[jonathanong]

platypusjs. it's the platyform for frameworks

[mikermcneil]

@sgress454 exGRESS4.5.4?!?!

[mikermcneil]

I hear Platypus is the only platyform that marries the middleware plattern with the convention over configuration platytude

http://www.platypus-platform.org

[rlidwka]

There is no need for a new framework. There is connect, koa, some people use restify, and it covers pretty much anything, right?

If you do have any interest in express left, we should fork it as is. Preserving all versions, api compatibility, etc. just like it was before. Github stars and issues would be lost, npm repository ownership could be challenged (if not, we could tell it is moved), but everything else could stay the same.

If you don't have any interest in express, lets thank strongloop guys for taking it and move over. Maybe continue investing in connect+middlewares as a drop-in replacement for express. But in this case all modules with "express" in it should be renamed to "connect", there is no need to contribute to strongloop trademarks here.

[dougwilson]

@rlidwka to be clear, I am not advocating some new framework, because we already have enough frameworks. If you are interested in knowing the details of the future, feel free to email me and we can chat about it if you are concerned :)

[defunctzombie]

What about re-purposing connect? (Assuming we can get that transfered to
the org) no one seems to care that much about bare bones connect these days
after we ripped everything out.
On Aug 1, 2014 10:05 AM, "Alex Kocharin" [email protected] wrote:

Email sent... I'm certainly concerned about it.

If you do want to rename it though, jshttp looks good, and better than
anything with https in it. As far as I've read, next the scheme will
still be "http" in HTTP/2.0, so name should be future-proof.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment)
.

[mikermcneil]

What about re-purposing connect? (Assuming we can get that transfered to
the org) no one seems to care that much about bare bones connect these days
after we ripped everything out.

That's what I was thinking too- worth a discussion right?

[dougwilson]

Naw, that is also just a distraction from our real underlying goals.

[Fishrock123]

What doug said.

Also let's not get a 2nd corporation mixed up in this >_<

[mikermcneil]

let's not get a 2nd corporation mixed up in this >_<

@Fishrock123 I keep forgetting about the senchalabs part

[defunctzombie]

Is there a reason we don't want to leave org name as is and just call it
expressjs? Too similar?

Kinda reminds me of OpenOffice vs go-oo now haha
On Aug 1, 2014 10:28 AM, "Jeremiah Senkpiel" [email protected]
wrote:

What doug said.

Also let's not get a 2nd corporation mixed up in this >_<

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment)
.

[dougwilson]

Well, because the org name we are talking about here is for those http libs, which we would have liked to have their own org regardless :)

[defunctzombie]

Why?
On Aug 1, 2014 10:32 AM, "Douglas Christopher Wilson" <
[email protected]> wrote:

Well, because the org name we are talking about here is for those http
libs, which we would have liked to have their own org regardless :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment)
.

[mikermcneil]

Why?

maybe let's take that conversation offline guys? I think it's going to take some time to get adjusted

[Fishrock123]

Why?

Well..

3. move all the "utilities" to some sort of "node-web-framework-utils" org. #2

these aren't all mutually exclusive, but i want 3) just for code organization. there are a lot of TJ's web modules that he didn't feel like transferring here because they weren't exactly express related. we could fork and continue maintaining them in this organization.

[dougwilson]

Anyone who is interested, I would like to voice with (I've already spoken with a few people here) about what I think our direction should be and how we can pump even more value into the community than has been done thus far.

[Twipped]

I am very interested :)

[dougwilson]

I am very interested :)

My email in in my GH profile ;0

[jonathanong]

So can we start moving stuff to js http or are we waiting for something?

@dougwilson did you want to talk about the framework or the org?

[dougwilson]

@dougwilson did you want to talk about the framework or the org?

everything

[Fishrock123]

@jonathanong I suggest you talk to @dougwilson first.

[jonathanong]

i'll idle on gchat. jonathanrichardong@gmail

[dougwilson]

Closing this issue, as it is pretty stale now.