Based on a bunch of conversations, we
intentionally avoided structuring this like an architecture
diagram, or drawing dependencies between projects. We have no
global architecture across all projects (yet); there are a lot of
ways that incorrect assumptions could be arrived at if the graphic
were attempting to infer architecture; it could inadvertently
conceptually lock in things that are intended to be temporary
situations, such as Grid only running on Sawtooth; and drawing
lines to make such things more accurate could make it very busy.
One thing we looked at was the Cloud
Native Trail Map:
It's obviously very different, and
larger than what could easily be fit into a single slide or top
fold of a web site (perhaps we ditch those requirements), and more
"wordy", but by being more wordy it acts as a really good guide to
someone diving into the full CNCF community.
Separately a map of dependencies and
the like across all HL projects could be very interesting as a
separate exercise. It would have to be something the projects and
TSC, or one of its WG's, perhaps architecture, committed to
keeping up to date.
would love to see a graph-like structure with edges between
layers indicating compatibilities or dependencies. But then
again, I’m not a marketing expert. Can anyone from the
marketing committee comment on some of the ideas here?
Would that be too “busy?”
On Behalf Of Middleton, Dan
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 7:05 AM
To: Dave Cecchi <david_cecchi@...>;
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger taxonomy
and revised greenhouse graphic for review
I had a similar reaction. Frameworks are
the underlying fabric ;) responsible for data replication
Thinking about future projects what would
this look like if we got a consensus library project?
What other forward looking considerations
come to mind?
Ok, now we’re up to nearly a nickel.
on behalf of Dave Cecchi <david_cecchi@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger
taxonomy and revised greenhouse graphic for review
My two cents is only that - especially with
Transact starting to drive more "unification" - it
be worth reconsidering the visual to be more representative of
the "stack". This is really a catalog, but even a mildly
technical audience wants to know "how do these things work
together (if at all)". With blockchain platforms / frameworks
at the top and everything else smallboxed as siblings
underneath, the mental model the picture presents doesn't
necessarily drive to solutions/capabilities. Maybe that's
deliberate, though? Again, just my 2 cents.
Executive Director, Hyperledger