OLC?

hans wrote:

[....]

Have a look at sis-at.streckenflug.at to see the dead end of this
technology ;-)
The team for sis-at are CH, one new person, and myself and JK helping us
out with the maps and baros.

And we do distributed development, like in the old days of the OLC, now
only between Vienna and Munich, in the days of the OLC it was Munich,
Vienna, Constance, and Hamburg.


Hans,

I look forward to an English version for the undereducated Ausländer
(that would be me).


Jack

Jack schrieb:
hans wrote:

[....]

Have a look at sis-at.streckenflug.at to see the dead end of this
technology ;-)
The team for sis-at are CH, one new person, and myself and JK helping
us out with the maps and baros.

And we do distributed development, like in the old days of the OLC,
now only between Vienna and Munich, in the days of the OLC it was
Munich, Vienna, Constance, and Hamburg.


Hans,

I look forward to an English version for the undereducated Ausländer
(that would be me).


Jack


At the moment there is no intension by the Austrian Aeroclub to extend
the competition to non members of the Austrian Aeroclub. That is why the
multi language capability is not turned on.

I hope that Martin, my successor at the OLC, will solve many of the
current issues with OLC2 in the near future. He is working hard to
solve the issues, but one person can not do all the work.

hans wrote:
Doug Haluza schrieb:
I was at the OLC symposium in Gersfeld/Roehn Germany yesterday, and had
a chance to talk to some of the developers on the OLC team. The old OLC
sysyem, though functional, was a technological dead end. It was one
large C-language program, written by one person, without documentation.
So it was not possible to make changes to one part of the program,
without affecting other parts. It was also not possible to support this
properly with a distributed team of volunteers.

I can assure you that some of the information you got there was not
correct.

Well, I was speaking in English to native German speakers, so something
may have been lost in translation, but I think it was substantially
correct. Obviously there is some history here that I am not aware of,
though.

The old software was a C-code written by myself and JK, plus a
mySql-database, which stored all the information, plus lots of php-code
written by CH, AR for all the displays and scorings and a third person
for the BHC.

Impossible to maintain and dead end? Yes, if you remove the two lead
persons within 6 month form the project.

I did not say it was impossible to maintain--in fact I said it was
functional. I did say it was not possible to support properly with a
distributed team. Many things can be done, but that does not mean they
should be done. If you are working with a distributed team, especially
an all-volunteer team, a modular architecture allows you to parse out
tasks, and decouple the separate activities.

Have a look at sis-at.streckenflug.at to see the dead end of this
technology ;-)
The team for sis-at are CH, one new person, and myself and JK helping us
out with the maps and baros.

And we do distributed development, like in the old days of the OLC, now
only between Vienna and Munich, in the days of the OLC it was Munich,
Vienna, Constance, and Hamburg.

It is possible to do distributed development on a monolithic block of
code, but it is not possible to work both simultaneously and
independently as you can with a modular architecture. Obviously the
modular architecture of OLC 2.0 will help the OLC developers to explore
new possibilities, once the basic functions are stable.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Doug Haluza schrieb:


It is possible to do distributed development on a monolithic block of
code, but it is not possible to work both simultaneously and
independently as you can with a modular architecture. Obviously the
modular architecture of OLC 2.0 will help the OLC developers to explore
new possibilities, once the basic functions are stable.


It was not a monolithic block of software, because this would not have
allowed the distributed concurrent development adopted by the old team.

I hope for the idea of the onlinecontest that the technology mix
selected now is the right one for the new team working now on it.

The old version was functional with minor inconveniences.
Eventually I have no doubt that the new version will
also be fully functional. But could we not have retained
the old version for another year until the new version
was really ready for general use ? New technology
is nice [until it in turn becomes old technology] but
functionality is really what it's all about.

And thankyou to all the volunteers without whom we
would have neither any technology nor functionality.

Ian

Doug,

Any idea when the basics will be stable?

thanks,

Mike


Doug Haluza wrote:
hans wrote:
Doug Haluza schrieb:
I was at the OLC symposium in Gersfeld/Roehn Germany yesterday, and had
a chance to talk to some of the developers on the OLC team. The old OLC
sysyem, though functional, was a technological dead end. It was one
large C-language program, written by one person, without documentation.
So it was not possible to make changes to one part of the program,
without affecting other parts. It was also not possible to support this
properly with a distributed team of volunteers.

I can assure you that some of the information you got there was not
correct.

Well, I was speaking in English to native German speakers, so something
may have been lost in translation, but I think it was substantially
correct. Obviously there is some history here that I am not aware of,
though.

The old software was a C-code written by myself and JK, plus a
mySql-database, which stored all the information, plus lots of php-code
written by CH, AR for all the displays and scorings and a third person
for the BHC.

Impossible to maintain and dead end? Yes, if you remove the two lead
persons within 6 month form the project.

I did not say it was impossible to maintain--in fact I said it was
functional. I did say it was not possible to support properly with a
distributed team. Many things can be done, but that does not mean they
should be done. If you are working with a distributed team, especially
an all-volunteer team, a modular architecture allows you to parse out
tasks, and decouple the separate activities.

Have a look at sis-at.streckenflug.at to see the dead end of this
technology ;-)
The team for sis-at are CH, one new person, and myself and JK helping us
out with the maps and baros.

And we do distributed development, like in the old days of the OLC, now
only between Vienna and Munich, in the days of the OLC it was Munich,
Vienna, Constance, and Hamburg.

It is possible to do distributed development on a monolithic block of
code, but it is not possible to work both simultaneously and
independently as you can with a modular architecture. Obviously the
modular architecture of OLC 2.0 will help the OLC developers to explore
new possibilities, once the basic functions are stable.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

You would think by now we would see some improvements...
Still default to tomorrow and the calendar doesn't work...

Ramy

Ian Cant wrote:
The old version was functional with minor inconveniences.
Eventually I have no doubt that the new version will
also be fully functional. But could we not have retained
the old version for another year until the new version
was really ready for general use ? New technology
is nice [until it in turn becomes old technology] but
functionality is really what it's all about.

And thankyou to all the volunteers without whom we
would have neither any technology nor functionality.

Ian

In order to make the calendar work I have to use the two double arrow
icons at the upper right and left edges of the calendar. First use the
upper double left arrow to move back 1 year, then use the upper right
double arrow to move forward 1 year. The date buttons then appear to
work.

As I have opinioned before, it's a shame these sorts of bugs were not
worked out in a beta test phase.

Bob

On 2 Nov 2006 20:10:28 -0800, "Ramy" wrote:

You would think by now we would see some improvements...
Still default to tomorrow and the calendar doesn't work...

Ramy

Ian Cant wrote:
The old version was functional with minor inconveniences.
Eventually I have no doubt that the new version will
also be fully functional. But could we not have retained
the old version for another year until the new version
was really ready for general use ? New technology
is nice [until it in turn becomes old technology] but
functionality is really what it's all about.

And thankyou to all the volunteers without whom we
would have neither any technology nor functionality.

Ian

At least here in good old Europe the calender works.

Could it be that the problem arises from the fact that the calender
always assumes that you are in Europe, while you are 9 hours behind.
Is the date correct when you check in the morning and not in the evening?

Some of the problems will not be visible to a user or tester in Europe.






Bob Gibbons schrieb:
In order to make the calendar work I have to use the two double arrow
icons at the upper right and left edges of the calendar. First use the
upper double left arrow to move back 1 year, then use the upper right
double arrow to move forward 1 year. The date buttons then appear to
work.

As I have opinioned before, it's a shame these sorts of bugs were not
worked out in a beta test phase.

Bob

On 2 Nov 2006 20:10:28 -0800, "Ramy" wrote:

You would think by now we would see some improvements...
Still default to tomorrow and the calendar doesn't work...

On Nov 4, 2:51 pm, hans wrote:
At least here in good old Europe the calender works.

Could it be that the problem arises from the fact that the calender
always assumes that you are in Europe, while you are 9 hours behind.
Is the date correct when you check in the morning and not in the evening?

Some of the problems will not be visible to a user or tester in Europe.

Yes, I'm sure that may be part of it. Perhaps a user profile set with
cookies and coupled to the login could address some of these issues?
Or some command line variables to help customize the view?

The OLC link in the USA, for example goes through the SSA website. If
they could add some options there so that a click on "scoring" would
automatically select United States, and a generic timezone for the US,
that may help.

One feature I find missing is the aboulity to display the one month
list of flights - especially nice if there a not yet many flights for
"today". Actually, an option to display the last week's worth of
flights would be very nice, as that would provide a reasonable snapshot
of recent activity.

-Tom