mobile client or mobile app

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

mobile client or mobile app

Craig Brookes
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

Wojciech Trocki
+1 for using mobile client. Creating mobile apps on OpenShift sounds vague.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

Jason Madigan
In reply to this post by Craig Brookes
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

pwright
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

Craig Brookes
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

pwright

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

David Martin
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

Matthias Wessendorf
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

pwright

last comment, then I'll stop (promise):

Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time about the definition.

I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.

Can we be more explicit and give an example?

- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)

Paul


On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

Matthias Wessendorf


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

last comment, then I'll stop (promise):

Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time about the definition.

I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.

Can we be more explicit and give an example?

- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


container ... hrm - not sure -  that's also misleading... ?! 

 



Paul


On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

John Frizelle
perhaps "construct" instead of "container configuration"

MobileClient: A construct that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


--
John Frizelle
Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: <a href="tel://+353872901644" target="_blank">+353 87 290 1644
twitter: @johnfriz
skype: john_frizelle




On 30 November 2017 at 11:48, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

last comment, then I'll stop (promise):

Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time about the definition.

I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.

Can we be more explicit and give an example?

- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


container ... hrm - not sure -  that's also misleading... ?! 

 



Paul


On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev



_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

pwright

That works for me:

* it's something you're going to see in OpenShift

* there's an example that kinda helps relate the scope

* it's not the 'Mobile App'

Paul


On 11/30/2017 01:23 PM, John Frizelle wrote:
perhaps "construct" instead of "container configuration"

MobileClient: A construct that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


--
John Frizelle
Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: <a href="tel://+353872901644" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">+353 87 290 1644
twitter: @johnfriz
skype: john_frizelle




On 30 November 2017 at 11:48, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

last comment, then I'll stop (promise):

Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time about the definition.

I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.

Can we be more explicit and give an example?

- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


container ... hrm - not sure -  that's also misleading... ?! 

 



Paul


On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

Matthias Wessendorf
In reply to this post by John Frizelle
I like that - and is similar to UPS terminology :)



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:23 PM, John Frizelle <[hidden email]> wrote:
perhaps "construct" instead of "container configuration"

MobileClient: A construct that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


--
John Frizelle
Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: <a href="tel://+353872901644" target="_blank">+353 87 290 1644
twitter: @johnfriz
skype: john_frizelle




On 30 November 2017 at 11:48, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

last comment, then I'll stop (promise):

Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time about the definition.

I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.

Can we be more explicit and give an example?

- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


container ... hrm - not sure -  that's also misleading... ?! 

 



Paul


On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev





--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

David Martin
I thought this was interesting.

Chris Shinn (UX) came up with the term 'Mobile Client Build' in UI mockups for mobile apps on the OpenShift overview screen.
This was to make it obvious we're talking about 'Mobile' builds rather than typical S2I or Docker builds.



Inline images 1

On 30 November 2017 at 14:13, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like that - and is similar to UPS terminology :)



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:23 PM, John Frizelle <[hidden email]> wrote:
perhaps "construct" instead of "container configuration"

MobileClient: A construct that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


--
John Frizelle
Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: <a href="tel://+353872901644" target="_blank">+353 87 290 1644
twitter: @johnfriz
skype: john_frizelle




On 30 November 2017 at 11:48, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

last comment, then I'll stop (promise):

Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time about the definition.

I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.

Can we be more explicit and give an example?

- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


container ... hrm - not sure -  that's also misleading... ?! 

 



Paul


On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev





--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

Chris Shinn
That said, I do think that there’s value in “app”. Especially because of its ubiquity, it’s likely to be the “search term" that people are looking for when they are trying to find parts of the interface that are relevant to their current task. 


On December 13, 2017 at 10:59:54 AM, David Martin ([hidden email]) wrote:

I thought this was interesting.

Chris Shinn (UX) came up with the term 'Mobile Client Build' in UI mockups for mobile apps on the OpenShift overview screen.
This was to make it obvious we're talking about 'Mobile' builds rather than typical S2I or Docker builds.



Inline images 1

On 30 November 2017 at 14:13, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like that - and is similar to UPS terminology :)



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:23 PM, John Frizelle <[hidden email]> wrote:
perhaps "construct" instead of "container configuration"

MobileClient: A construct that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


--
John Frizelle
Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: <a href="tel://+353872901644" target="_blank">+353 87 290 1644
twitter: @johnfriz
skype: john_frizelle




On 30 November 2017 at 11:48, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

last comment, then I'll stop (promise):

Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time about the definition.

I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.

Can we be more explicit and give an example?

- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


container ... hrm - not sure -  that's also misleading... ?! 

 



Paul


On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev





--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

Matthias Wessendorf
mobile app build ? 

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Chris Shinn <[hidden email]> wrote:
That said, I do think that there’s value in “app”. Especially because of its ubiquity, it’s likely to be the “search term" that people are looking for when they are trying to find parts of the interface that are relevant to their current task. 


On December 13, 2017 at 10:59:54 AM, David Martin ([hidden email]) wrote:

I thought this was interesting.

Chris Shinn (UX) came up with the term 'Mobile Client Build' in UI mockups for mobile apps on the OpenShift overview screen.
This was to make it obvious we're talking about 'Mobile' builds rather than typical S2I or Docker builds.



Inline images 1

On 30 November 2017 at 14:13, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like that - and is similar to UPS terminology :)



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:23 PM, John Frizelle <[hidden email]> wrote:
perhaps "construct" instead of "container configuration"

MobileClient: A construct that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


--
John Frizelle
Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: <a href="tel://+353872901644" target="_blank">+353 87 290 1644
twitter: @johnfriz
skype: john_frizelle




On 30 November 2017 at 11:48, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

last comment, then I'll stop (promise):

Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time about the definition.

I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.

Can we be more explicit and give an example?

- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


container ... hrm - not sure -  that's also misleading... ?! 

 



Paul


On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev





--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)



--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mobile client or mobile app

pwright

Ok, first, others reopened this wound, not me!

But I thought it was interesting that Microsoft (of all people) have a notion of the 'inner loop' of a developer's workflow, where developers are trying to  avoid the complexity of reality, and instead create a 'Draft': Streamlining Kubernetes development with Draft

Not that we're doing a similar thing, but is there a point to thinking beyond the 'construct', to the emulation/demo, while also  hanging a bit to MS coattails?

Paul

On 12/13/2017 04:36 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
mobile app build ? 

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Chris Shinn <[hidden email]> wrote:
That said, I do think that there’s value in “app”. Especially because of its ubiquity, it’s likely to be the “search term" that people are looking for when they are trying to find parts of the interface that are relevant to their current task. 


On December 13, 2017 at 10:59:54 AM, David Martin ([hidden email]) wrote:

I thought this was interesting.

Chris Shinn (UX) came up with the term 'Mobile Client Build' in UI mockups for mobile apps on the OpenShift overview screen.
This was to make it obvious we're talking about 'Mobile' builds rather than typical S2I or Docker builds.





On 30 November 2017 at 14:13, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like that - and is similar to UPS terminology :)



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:23 PM, John Frizelle <[hidden email]> wrote:
perhaps "construct" instead of "container configuration"

MobileClient: A construct that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


--
John Frizelle
Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: <a href="tel://+353872901644" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">+353 87 290 1644
twitter: @johnfriz
skype: john_frizelle




On 30 November 2017 at 11:48, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

last comment, then I'll stop (promise):

Let's go with MobileClient, as discussed below, but take a bit more time about the definition.

I think the definition for PushApplication is great in the context of UPS, but with MCP, we're trying to explain an item that is front and center, and that the user might misunderstand, or not act as expected.

Can we be more explicit and give an example?

- MobileClient: A container configuration that represents the overall mobile application on OpenShift (eg MobileHR)


container ... hrm - not sure -  that's also misleading... ?! 

 



Paul


On 11/30/2017 10:26 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
+1 on something like "logical construct / logical representation"   - and right UPS has also had some naming struggles :)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
The term 'Resource' may not suit as it has a meaning in the Kubernetes world.
Any object that kubernetes exposes an API for is a resource e.g. Secrets, Pods, Deployments are all resources.

In UPS, there's the idea of a 'Push Application', defined here [1]
"PushApplication
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"

I don't see any problem with giving it a name like 'Mobile Client' and calling it out in terminology in a similar manner
"MobileClient
A logical construct that represents an overall mobile application"


On 29 November 2017 at 09:42, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:

and that conversation makes me think we need to be more descriptive, eg

Mobile App Resource Client (MARC)

Paul


On 11/29/2017 09:38 AM, Craig Brookes wrote:
Spoke with Paul offline. And he thought we were referring to mobile app through out our docs. So to clarify I meant with the context of the mcp UI and CLI.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Paul Wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems to me that to tackle the mobile market, we should embrace the lingua franca, and the one word that unites mobile,cell phone, smartphone, handys, etc is 'App'

Paul

my original draft reply:

Mondays...

Let's fix everything <sigh>

I'm not against this change, but would like to throw in a note of caution:

1. I don't think OpenShift are really pushing the term apps. Sure, there's a command, and even some doc references (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/openshift_enterprise/3.2/html/installation_and_configuration/install-config-imagestreams-templates#creating-instantapp-templates), but would like to check with them before assuming that's deliberate. In my mind, their term of choice is Application, a bit more of an enterprisey term.

2. Does "Mobile Clients" solve a problem? we already have a generation of ppl saying "there's an app for that", do we want to embrace that or swim upstream? what about when there's a web ui to something, we used to bundle mobile and web into the term 'client app'.





On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Jason Madigan wrote:
Deep thoughts this early in the week. App is quite a loaded term alright, particularly in an OpenShift context, so I think Mobile Client may be a clearer distinction.

Looping in our wordsmith Paul who may have other ideas.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was thinking about terminology . We have been using the term mobile app, but I wonder would it be clearer to use the term mobile client instead. 
The main reason for this is that app can mean a server side component (in OpenShift there is the new-app command for example). I think it would make a clearer distinction. Another example is around the word build. When you do an app build in OpenShift it normally produces a docker image and a running server / app. I think using the the term mobile client build makes it clearer what is happening. 

Just a thought for a Monday morning.

--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Jason Madigan
Engineering Manager, Red Hat Mobile




--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
Project lead AeroGear.org




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev





--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)



--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev