I have had an interesting parallel situation in work this week, which is in the space of Data Integrations and Reporting within a company. We inherited a lot of reporting that was historically built largely organically over years by one non-technical business user, who is very strong in business knowledge. The team we since grew is in the process of replacing all this legacy world to meet the needs of our growing business and to be enterprise grade.
The data structure side was largely an easy conversation, but it has been a little journey to shift the thinking around the front-end reporting, Multi-dimensional CUBE design, etc. to incorporate scalable design techniques. Some issues disappeared over time through discussion, slight changes to the design and just time to use the new design. However on Friday I made one small change I would have otherwise not wished to, as this person felt it was much more aesthetic (read: familiar) even though there was no net change in functionality. Why? Relationships.
@marvin7 I’m certainly not giving up. This is how I learn new technologies; I’m looking at the decompiler output for both app versions currently to see how to re-implement it.
But I hope it won’t be necessary as it appears to me that there is no conflict in this case with the technical implementation and progression of Blynk, but something that can be added as an optional App side visual formatting option. For me this is different than changing server ports or a breaking change in a library version to progress the platform, where there is a path forward, it’s about the customer having the confidence and reliability in the maturity of the eco-system and functionality.
It’s one of those interesting customer relationship scenarios, the development team and @Dmitriy have every right to move forward in the direction that they see fit. And in the warmest way I can say that they have done a great job with the platform to date. Have a nice Sunday everyone!