-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Rocket.Chat -- Editions #1741
Comments
Edition: Payload - for non-chat centric, new, business oriented apps for which RC provides
|
I like the idea, but the Community label alone doesn't say much. I'd go for:
or... we should be able do dynamically load packages. That may be possible with the new Meteor support for NPM. |
I would like to see the more modular approach be the route we go. I foresee On Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 6:20 PM Danijel Cole notifications@github.com wrote:
|
@neurobe , @engelgabriel , @dcworldwide - thank you for the valuable input. I have updated the list of editions to reflect your comments. Please review. Rocket.Chat community -- additional ideas and comments are welcomed. |
I am embedding my app into RC, rather than the other way around. This might be only possible for new apps (hey, there is a new app born every minute), but still, I think it differentiates RC from other less well structured chat apps. I am utilising RC's user management (and multi-language support et al) and will use its text/voice/video chatting, but that is not the raison d'etre of my app - which concerns health devices and giving the practitioner intimate access to both the client and the equipment. More generally, this app might fall under the category of 'distance education'. |
Also, should not forget RC's multi-platform, multi-deploy infrastructure that I intend to ratchet. Wow. All in all RC provides a bunch of infrastructure that is highly appealing to independent devs of modern apps I would think. |
OT: wow @neurobe! Thank you for sharing. Comments like that mean a lot to us. The rest of the core-team will be on cloud 9 when they read it in a few hours. 😄 |
I'm not sure whether the "OT" tag means I'm not getting thru here. |
Hi @neurobe I fully understand what you are saying, and I am very aligned with the idea of Rocket.Chat as a platform. I have seen the glimpse of it on the new HitChat... see the article below: |
There you go! |
We will take a look at the calendar soon, and we pretty much embrace the notion of extensibility for payloads. :) |
Thank you, @sampaiodiego , for the helpful quantitative stats! It definitely looks like there is NO NEED, at least for the next few months, to disable LiveChat on Editions that should include it. To summarize, the revised list of proposed editions are:
Rocket.Chat community ... please keep those comments and suggestions coming. We're wide open for your ideas on this one. |
@Sing-Li assuming all editions will remain opensource and free? - other OSS products when using the editions "Pro or Enterprise" usually start charging for that version? |
@Megatronic79 Yes. The intention is to keep the editions, "Pro or Enterprise" included, open source and free. Support for all editions will be exactly the same as it is today. Community support plus optional professional support (from our community members as well as direct from Rocket.Chat). Recent global-scoped FOSS projects have found great success with this model. |
Thanks @Sing-Li +1 for dynamically loading of packages, think this would be a great option. |
@Megatronic79 - at this time, Meteor does not load packages dynamically. By design, Meteor packages are configurable only at build time. We can engineer such a mechanism specifically for Rocket.Chat --> #1485, or wait for MDG to solve the problem (some Meteor community members already have some success with hacking webpack ). And MDG is trying to integrate at some We have also considered the possibility of hosting a custom-build-service that performs customized builds on-demand. More thought is needed on the combinatorial support matrix implied by such approach, as well as how realistically useful it may be - unless every features package comes with some "tested and well-documented" resource [compute + memory + db vs # of users] and dependencies profile. |
feedback on RC usage. If there is something that someone sees is needed before this can happen, then I am happy to put a bounty on it. (Aside: a map showing location of those currently on-line would be a nice slide-in panel to have - think it go mentioned in the early days..) Versions will run on embedded processors (ie smart toys (as client) and micro-computers HDMI dongles (as server)) as well as tablets and PCs. Don't see issues in doing this - instances of headless toys (as client) which don't need chat capability (the toys won't be that smart), but rather needing data streaming only maybe can exist outside RC as a standalone app, but then again a major point of the all this meteor stuff is to have a single code base. |
Greetings all, and thank you for the great work you are doing ! We are looking into using RC as a framework / platform to build on for a direct democracy (e-democracy) voting application and for this purpose, the modularity / custom built "setup wizard" approach would be awesome (like @graywolf336 suggested). Also, the planned npm support would make our life much easier. Great work and great suggestions, |
There is this #1859 thread discussing the ideal of a package system. Maybe we should merge this issues? |
I agree with the dynamic modular approach, I think it would allow admins to specifically configure their instances the way they want. I don't even think a wizard is needed in most cases, simply a configuration file with the modules to enable/disable would be good enough in my opinion (I'm coming from inspircd so that's why I may be biased towards a simplistic solution). Wouldn't that approach also make it easier for 3rd party developers to make their own modules/custom commands? I'm not familiar with the rocket.chat code architecture and such, so pardon me if I'm asking. |
That's the main reason. |
Lets close this discussion about and concentrate the conversation at #1859 as it seems the way we will accomplish the modularity we want. |
Rocket.Chat Editions
Rocket.Chat community -- your input and ideas are requested.
Rocket.Chat has been growing phenomenally fast since its inception. Both in features and community size.
As Rocket.Chat continues its dual-growth trajectory in 2016, the single edition approach may no longer be able to satisfy the requirements of its diverse users community.
Take as an example - while the recent addition of the (very large) LiveChat feature is a key to many users' adoption for Rocket.Chat; it has also been an unwanted burden for other users who may have no need to handle customer service.
Another example is the myriad of included single-sign-on schemes, with LDAP and SAML (being the most complex and large) that users with simple servers installation may never have any need for.
Coming up soon, are features that can control access via complex policies, plus log and audit every single operation performed within the chat system. These are features that are championed by the corporate sub-communities of Rocket.Chat, while despised by the pro-privacy free-and-untethered installs sub-communities.
Most relevant to myself personally, Rocket.Chat is no longer able to run on the original Raspberry Pi. And installations on 512 MB VPSes often crashes during normal operation due to "out of memory" condition.
It is clear, ONE SIZE NO LONGER FITS ALL.
It is becoming increasingly necessary to build, test, and maintain multiple Editions of Rocket.Chat.
The initial proposal is to support at least the following editions:
But we would like to hear more about what you think about all of this before further planning.
Please comment and discuss.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: