NEM Framework - Community Proposal

[suky321]

The question is why would they need a developer to build their own private chain, if they can use an out of the box solution like NEM?

[Paul]

You are missing the point. I am challenging the numbers because there is a lack of transparency in that regard. I stated on telegram that I would like to see a cost rundown. Maybe the numbers actually make sense?

Secondly, do not get stuck on the numbers. The main question that has been raised multiple times is: Does it not make more sense to focus on the must haves now before we decide what the nice to haves could be?

I simply do not like the idea that we must buy a pimped out car now (7 milestones with uncertain features) just because we need the base model (2 milestones with must have features) to get us to our destination.

[sheld0r]

Well isn’t actually as easy as that… Simply take all 7 milestones and start with the 2 most important once. The payout will be in phases anyway and by the time these two are down we’ll for sure see some kind of catapult update / Beta release / etc. By then the milestones could be reviewed and amended… Or something like that.

[tucos]

Still waiting for core developers to chime in. I agree it can be made into a smaller project and then other phases can be voted on. However it will slow down the process. Can you propose a smaller but useful project on its own that can be completed within a couple of months? Then the NEM catapult will be released and then we can assess any remaining proposals after that.

[bcn]

Good afternoon rb2,

We have been a little bit busy this last couple of days discussing how to move forward so please take these answers with a grain of salt.

Please let me reply inline:

On the proposal itself, it seems to be very broad and covering very different items, which doesn’t match the agile approach that would be taken in the development of
this proposal. As mentioned by other a split proposal might make sense. What’s your opinion on that?

We are thinking about it, we would like to be as agile as possible although at the same time we would like to have the resources and path to move forward with a clear aim.

Is DSL really a correct name? From what I understand it is a library, not a language. I understood nem-library would handle all lower level interactions with the NEM
network, and what you call the dsl would be a higher level library. Is that it? A good library is more needed than a Domain Specific Language I think.

The DSL is a layer on top of the Library that would organize the different functions depending on how they will be used by their domain.

What is the real reusability of the proposed view components? Wouldn’t it be better to make it super easy for devs to build their own views? Without being a front-en
d developer, I’m afraid everyone would end up developing their own widgets. For example, you don’t see login widgets in web development frameworks, because everyone wants to present it their own way. What exists is frameworks to facilitate the login management in a web app (eg devise for rails).

The main reason for the view components is to offer an standarized (easy to use) set of views that will help any developer get bootstrapped fast if they don’t require customized templates. Think of oauth login popups for example. In the future we would like to try to add an extra layer of security trying to separate the password and therefore the keys from the rest of the system.

I find the proxy an important component, but there was a question raised about redundancy the catapult components. And this highlightens the problem of the development of catapult behind closed doors. As developers are very secretive, do you expect to get information from the core team? I would hope for the core team to be more open as this would benefit NEM, but can we reasonably hope that will happen?

Core devs are working hard and they have their reasons to do it this way. For instance, constant community support requires a lot of time. However, I don’t think it can be completely overlapping since even with a complete rewrite the client and the server will always be separate entities.

testrpc is a really good idea, but isn’t it a nightmare to maintain? Would it benefit from reuse of code from NIS/catapult?

TestRPC would be based on the Proxy, it is intended to mock the Blockchain.

in the platforms, electron is mentioned, but I don’t see where it fits in the proposal

Some of the languages mentioned are merely examples of the platforms that could easily use the framework.

you mention Mijin integration. Is it relevant for NEM funds to finance Mijin integration? Wouldn’t TechBureau be more indicated to support such an initiative?

It is our opinion that Mijin is one of the most important components that NEM offers. Very few chains allow easy private-public interaction. Why would you not want to improve interaction between both?

---

It is our understanding that the Community Fund is not intended to be as open as you are requiring (as the guidelines say). We have been completely transparent and intend to keep doing it, but you have to understand that it is not the same to be doing bounties than to aim to build and bring to market a project this size.

However we would like to announce that this proposal is on hold for the time being since the best path forward is being discussed with the core developers.

We appretiate your attention and implication on the process and are happy to see that NEM has such a strong community.

Thanks for your patience,

Albert

[willowfoot]

It is our understanding that the Community Fund is not intended to be as open as you are requiring (as the guidelines say). We have been completely transparent and intend to keep doing it, but you have to understand that it is not the same to be doing bounties than to aim to build and bring to market a project this size.

However we would like to announce that this proposal is on hold for the time being since the best path forward is being discussed with the core developers.

We appretiate your attention and implication on the process and are happy to see that NEM has such a strong community.

Thanks for your patience,

Albert

On hold … is this indefinitely?

I was finally coming around on your proposal and was ready to vote yes

Really hope your team can collaborate with the core devs and come up with an optimal game plan.

Looking forward to the next update …

[tucos]

However we would like to announce that this proposal is on hold for the time being since the best path forward is being discussed with the core developers.

I very much like this. I will probably vote yes when the devs and you agree on the project.

[Aerin]

I hope the issues are worked out and this goes forward soon. I’m very much looking forward to it and I feel the NEM blockchain would benefit greatly with a standardized framework for creating applications.

[zachamo]

Any word on this? Abandoned? Hope not!

[VothDott]

Hello everyone out there.
wanted to say a lot of thanks as reading through this thread I found a lot of very useful information for me. my wife got me out of house because i don’t take cialis anymore and i have to learn this in order to make money would you people mind if i am going to ask some questions that may or may not be already asked here? thanks!!

[Saul]

would you people mind if i am going to ask some questions that may or may not be already asked here? thanks!

Please do ask some questions. That is what the forum is for.

[Dan_V]

This is definitely spam Saul

What happened with this framework project though? We are looking at creating something fairly similar as part of our development but if there is something that we can use already then id like to get involved!