RFC 0002: Project UniCore Intro 🦄

cms/0001-project-unicore-intro.md

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+# Project UniCore 🦄
+
+Request for Contribution (RFC) 1 : _Introduction & Strategy_
+
+## Code of conduct
+
+Please read and respect the [RFC Code of Conduct](https://github.com/umbraco/rfcs/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)
+
+## Intended Audience
+
+The intended audience for this RFC is technical users and developers.
+
+## Summary
+
+Title: <span style="text-decoration:underline;">Project UniCore</span>
+
+We would like to proceed with moving the current Umbraco codebase from .Net Framework to be based on .Net Core. 
+
+We would like to make the porting of this code as simple as possible, both from the point of view of the engineers 
+but more importantly the point of view of Umbraco end-users/developers. 
+
+Where possible, we hope to create a .Net Core build of Umbraco while keeping as many of the same 
+existing APIs and paradigms that developers are currently used to.
+
+We are calling this the “Minimal disruption” approach.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Currently Umbraco runs on ASP.Net Framework which is a technology that is not in actively enhanced by 
+Microsoft. .Net Core is the default platform recommended by Microsoft and is the platform that Microsoft 
+will continue to evolve into the future, therefore, it is the obvious platform for Umbraco to move to.
+
+The motivation for the “Minimal disruption” approach is:
+
+For the benefit of Umbraco end-users, developers, contributors and Umbraco HQ, we want to make 
+the development process for this transition as simple and short as possible. This means we would 
+like to keep any changes to the current concepts in Umbraco to a minimum. We want to make the 
+transition from the current .Net Framework version of Umbraco to a .Net Core version of Umbraco 
+as frictionless as possible.
+
+## Detailed Design
+
+The “Project UniCore” title is a code name for this project since we do not want to explicitly affiliate 
+this project with an Umbraco numbered release. 
+
+There will be future RFCs ready when certain milestones are ready. See the “Related RFCs” section at 
+the end of this document. 
+
+### Critical Path diagram
+
+---
+![Project Unicore Diagram](assets/diagram.png)
+---
+
+*   The diagonal (top left to bottom right) is the “Critical Path” that will be taken to get to a .Net Core build. 
+*   ![#a998ba](https://placehold.it/15/a998ba/000000?text=+) Purple: Main components of the “Critical Path”
+*   ![#cccccc](https://placehold.it/15/cccccc/000000?text=+) Grey: Sub modules of the main components (subject to change)
+*   ![#CC0000](https://placehold.it/15/CC0000/000000?text=+) Red text: means that those will be RFCs that will be released when those milestones are ready
+*   ![#CC0000](https://placehold.it/15/CC0000/000000?text=+) Red box: Areas of risk that may affect the timeline
+*   ![#FFC300](https://placehold.it/15/FFC300/000000?text=+) Yellow: Areas that will be abstracted initially during the main phase of porting the project to .Net Core. 
+Once the .Net Core switch milestone is ready to start, these areas will need to be developed in parallel with 
+the “Critical Path”. The development of these areas should only be commenced with the 
+consultation of Umbraco core development team.
+*   ![#C9d7f1](https://placehold.it/15/C9d7f1/000000?text=+) Blue: Out of scope for “Project UniCore”. Candidates for successive projects.flag
+*   ![#DAF7A6](https://placehold.it/15/DAF7A6/000000?text=+) Green: Considerations for pre-launch of the Umbraco .Net Core build (i.e. ecosystem) 
+
+
+### Other
+
+*   The next RFC is the “Project structure design” which will contain the details about how we plan 
+to get to the “.Net Core Switch” milestone
+*   The final result of the “Minimal disruption” approach with regards to moving from the current .Net 
+Framework version of Umbraco to a .Net Core version of Umbraco is that developers will be able to migrate 
+their projects. The database will be able to be upgraded the same way as it is today. The solution 
+will need to be migrated from .Net Framework projects to .Net Core projects and the existing code 
+will need to be updated to support any breaking changes. Breaking changes will exist due to the ASP.Net 
+change from .Net Framework to .Net Core and also for any necessary changes needed by the 
+Umbraco .Net Core transition.
+*   Namespace changes in the Umbraco solution will be made. Although this is a breaking change we feel 
+that this is easily overcome by a textual find + replace. 
+*   Documentation will be provided on how to transition to the Umbraco .Net Core version including 
+what breaking changes exist and how to overcome the common changes.
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+Breaking changes are unavoidable when moving from the current .Net Framework of Umbraco to the .Net 
+Core version of Umbraco. The primary purpose of this RFC is to show that we want to minimize these 
+breaking changes where possible.
+
+
+## Alternatives
+
+
+
+1. The alternative to “Minimal disruption” approach is that we re-architect the majority of the 
+Umbraco solution which would yield very large breaking changes and make the transition to this 
+new version much more difficult and time consuming. There would be benefits of re-architecting 
+large parts of the solution which would mean a cleaner Umbraco solution but we feel it’s more 
+important to get to a .Net Core build faster and then make further architectural changes and 
+enhancements in later versions.
+2. Not changing namespaces at all. This will make the development flow more difficult. We also feel 
+that it’s a necessary stepping stone with minimal impact to move towards a cleaner solution in the future.
+3. Don’t move to .Net Core. We don’t feel that this is a viable option for a sustainable future of the Umbraco CMS.
+
+
+## Out of Scope
+
+
+
+*   Architectural changes and features that are not part of the “Critical Path” (including but not limited to Blue items)
+
+
+## Unresolved Issues
+
+The answers that we are hoping to get from the community is:
+
+
+
+*   Is this approach understandable?
+*   Are there aspects of this approach missing?
+*   Do you agree with the “Minimal disruption” approach? If not, why?
+
+
+## Related RFCs (where are we in roadmap?)
+
+
+*   RFC - Introduction & Strategy
+    *   RFC - Project/solution restructure
+    *   RFC - Database abstraction
+    *   RFC - Imaging abstraction
+    *   RFC - Configuration
+    *   RFC - .Net Core Version choice
+    *   RFC - Microsoft DI transition
+    *   RFC - Linux / Docker
+
+
+## Contributors
+
+This RFC was compiled by:
+
+*   Shannon Deminick (Umbraco HQ)
+*   Carole Logan (Umbraco Community)
+*   Lars-Erik Aabech (Umbraco Community)
+*   Stéphane Gay (Umbraco HQ)
+*   Bjarke Berg (Umbraco HQ)
+*   Umbraco 2019 Retreat members