Roadmap planning for MEAN.JS 0.5.0

[lirantal]

Features

• 0.4.0 - refactor_user 0.4.0 - refactor_user #559 (need PR work) added to backlog (mleanos)
• JWT (JSON Web Tokens) authentication method ([UNRESOLVED] JWT Authentication #1163) added to backlog (mleanos)
• Deprecating Grunt in favor of Gulp (deprecate(grunt): Remove Grunt #1175)
• Angular 1.4
• Angular Styleguide - https://github.com/johnpapa/angular-styleguide
  • Articles
  • Core (feat(core): Modify core module to implement style guidelines. #1202)
  • Users (feat(users): Modify users module to implement style guidelines. #1208)
• Articles admin feature #807 [Enhancement] Articles admin @ilanbiala

General Cleanups

• Cleaning up the /client issue 0.4 - favicon link in layout.server.view.html #608 ( @trainerbill )

Documentation

• Support deploying MEANJS to Cloud Foundry Support Deploying MEANJS To Cloud Foundry #681 support dropped & feature removed with chore(core): Remove Bluemix #1476 (mleanos)

[simison]

https://github.com/johnpapa/angular-styleguide #490

[utx0]

+1

[simison]

Supposing 0.5.0 won't hit the master branch very soon, we could try to include new ng-router. #530 once its ready/documented.

Using Angular 1.5 would be a good step towards 2.0 some time in the future (0.6.0?)

[pdfowler]

https://github.com/johnpapa/angular-styleguide #490

THIS!!!! Some key highlights that I've adopted in my project:

• "$scope must die!" - use controller as in place of $scope Y030:View Syntax, Y031:Controller Syntax and [Y032:with vm](https://github.com/johnpapa/angular-styleguide#style-y032]
• IIFE : Immediately Invoked Function Expressions Style Y010
• Standardized and rigorous use of JSHint, JSCS, JSDoc

[vaucouleur]

The edit and delete buttons, as well as the "posted on and posted by" at the bottom of every view-x.client.view.html pages are, arguably, a form of code duplication across generated modules.

Custom directives could help factoring out those pieces of code.

• On the Pros side, it would be pushing forward the "angular way" (directives), and help people get a concrete example of one or two simple custom directives.
• On the Cons side, it would make sites with a single "business object" module (Article), more complicated than necessary.

[ilanbiala]

@lirantal definitely a good idea to have many more directives implemented. Biggest thing is we should move to Angular 1.4 first.

[trainerbill]

I created a pagination directive to do paginiation + search easily (One directive and one view) like in the admin module:

https://github.com/trainerbill/mean/tree/PaginationDirective

We could use it across the entire app. I figure articles could benefit from it. Doesn't affect anything right now as it is just an unused directive. There is a POC on the homepage of that branch. Take a look and we can push it in if you want.

[simison]

Should this be divided into 0.4.x and 0.5.0 stuff (just subtitles, I don't mean having two separate issues) so that we'll have a better picture of the roadmap?

There's a number of PL's that might not be breaking and they could thus be pre-0.5.0.

[lirantal]

sure, I updated.

[roshangade]

+1 - really great features! Gulp, Angular 1.4, John Papa's Angular Styleguide

[kokokenada]

Support for Cordova (and/or Ionic) clients? This has been the driving reason (for me) on #389 and configurable REST endpoints.

In the modules I'm developing with MEAN, I use the existing "modules//client" directory for client code intended for any client, "modules/my_module/client-ionic" for client code intended for ionic only (A watcher automatically updates the ionic app directory). I use "modules/my_module/client-md" for client code intended for angular material ("modules/my_module/client-bts" could house bootstrap specific client code). The client specific code are the views, CSS, route configurations, some presentation specific controllers (e.g. to deal with $ionicModal or $mdDialog).

Lots of controller, directive and service Javascript code works perfectly in both client environments. A wrapper deals with toast, alert, confirm.

[ilanbiala]

@lirantal since we had some issues with #559, do you want to try to start a PR for the user refactor? I think that is a good thing to revise, because @sielay had some worthwhile suggestions, but they needed tweaking.

On another note, Gulp has still not reached its 4.0 release, but once it does I'll start rewriting the gulpfile and start making gulp == grunt.

[lirantal]

Not sure I have the time to take that on but once I do I'll review this list again

[trendzetter]

why would you deprecate grunt? can't we keep it? It's not that it is not maintained

[lirantal]

@trendzetter we can't maintain 2 build systems, which is what we are doing now with more focus on grunt and less on gulp but it seems that the tide has changed and gulp is definitely winning.

What is your concern about keeping with grunt over switching to gulp?

[ilanbiala]

The generator currently only has Gulp (it's used for development), so it would be best if we could do the same here. Supporting one build system with more effort will result in a better boilerplate.

[mleanos]

I don't know if this has been addressed..

Can we keep Grunt in the project, and just not do any new development with it? If soneone wants to come along and do some work on it, they could submit PR's. However, we don't need to put it as a high priority.

[ilanbiala]

I have mixed feelings about that, because it's good that people can just use it if they want, but that means we segment the community and will eventually get a PR that requires us to focus on that at some point, which means we'll never put 0 work into it. Also, it might give users the idea that we support Grunt, when Gulp will pull ahead in terms of features and support and then we'll receive issues on that topic and requests to go back to parity/support Grunt. I'm not sure if there's a perfect way to work out having both systems.

[mleanos]

@ilanbiala That makes sense to me, and I think your instincts are spot on. It's probably not worth the effort, and we may end up having to support it.

If users really want to use Grunt, they can "re-implement" it, or use previous releases as a guide on adding it.

[trendzetter]

@lirantal On closer inspection Gulp seems ok. I was afraid it would be a problem porting over my project and I would have to relearn stuff but it appears the impact is nihil. I was a bit suspicious in the zealous fanaticism that seems to surround gulp. I say, live and let live.

[marxav]

@lirantal Have you considered relying only "npm" rather than "gulp" and/or "grunt" as described in https://medium.com/@housecor/why-i-left-gulp-and-grunt-for-npm-scripts-3d6853dd22b8 ?

[ilanbiala]

@marxav have you looked into our Gulp setup to see if there's anything we can't do in a node+npm script?

[codydaig]

@ilanbiala @mleanos @trainerbill @lirantal @rhutchison @simison and anybody else that I'm forgetting:

I'm going to go through and triage issues and PRs right now. There are a lot of big and awesome PRs on their way and I want to prioritize them. Let's discuss what everyone things is a priority and why. Include specific PRs and issues as well. We'll evaluate and come up with a go forward plan for getting 0.5 finished and released.

[trainerbill]

@codydaig I want the JWT PR in asap.

1. It's Awesome
2. It touches many files across the whole app, making conflicts likely
3. It's basically ready. Just waiting on a test and socketIO
4. It will grow in size when we merge other PRs with new functionality
5. It increases coverage.
6. It's Awesome

Cons:

1. It will break new functionality PR's that have not conformed to it.

[codydaig]

I updated the description above with some tasks that need to get accomplished. The biggest 2 are the refactor of core and users to match the new style guide. Anybody want to take on these refactors? These should be done before we get too deep in enhancements and new features.

[itelo]

I checked #389, and i didn't understand if MEAN.js has some plan to be mobile platform too. I'd like this feature...

[codydaig]

@itelo #1163 is on the list and in progress.

[mathpaquette]

Any plans for Agular 2.0? @codydaig @lirantal @ilanbiala

[ilanbiala]

Not for 0.5.0. We've already upgraded to Angular 1.5.

[ignasg]

Any ideas about ECMAScript 6.x support?
http://es6-features.org/

[lirantal]

@meanjs/contributors, @simison @hyperreality @luebken @vaucouleur
I suggest we close down as many more PRs/issues as we can in the next couple of weeks and ship out 0.5.0 - it has major fixes, including security issues that should go in.

• We obviously won't be addressing the JWT and 0.4.0 user refactor from the TODO list above in the scope of this 0.5.0
• We should however deprecate and remove Grunt completely in favor of Gulp.

Any comments?

[trendzetter]

So turns out jwt is not the way to go.
I have been away from the keyboard for months because of back pains. Seems the release is taking long and it is starting to have stagnating effect. I think we shouldn't wait much longer so we can set new targets that can motivate contributors.

[trendzetter]

A lot of bugfixing going on still. Getting it right is also important!

[mleanos]

@lirantal I've updated the task list in this issue. And as soon #1175 is merged, we just have some minor-ish PR's to wrap up; some bug fixes, and other front-end enhancements.

[mleanos]

@meanjs/contributors I think we're ready to release 0.5.0. Is there anything else that we want merged in?

Anyone else have any thoughts/comments on releasing 0.5.0?

[dalelotts]

Nice work! I love this project! Just one thing, please update to the very latest node and bower dependencies for 0.5.0 (i.e. npm-check-updates -u and bower list) - every time I clone I spend an hour updating the dependencies, fixing code, and running the tests.

[lirantal]

@mleanos definitely, I'll push it today.
@dalelotts exactly the reason why I am going to create a shrinkwrap file so we don't have to deal with drifting dependencies.

[dalelotts]

@lirantal Great, I think. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I would like to see smaller, more frequent releases - in a small, frequent release model (i.e. continuous delivery) shrink wrapping may not be entirely necessary.

[lirantal]

0.5.0 released, thanks everyone!
Let's open a new 0.6.0 thread to discuss there the next step for MEAN.JS