AFAIK the GWT choice was made cause it allows to code once the OT module -
the same code works on the server and the client and no need to synchronize
the changes. Another advantage of GWT is the ability to render the waves on
the server side re-using the rendering code of the client side. Again -
About XMPP, as long as Wave built on XMPP,
are someone here want to participate in making federation with
http://buddycloud.com/ , for example?
by federation i mean - we have our real-time typing and other goods,
they receive our messages when they are in major revisions, or
kind of,
or, maybe
Adrian, about prototyping and pseudo-code please take a look at
https://github.com/JonathanAquino/noweb.py
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM, ya knygar kny...@gmail.com wrote:
About XMPP, as long as Wave built on XMPP,
are someone here want to participate in making federation with
I have started writing the first standard, Federation Protocol, which
(for reasons I already discussed) isn't changing much, but merely
clarifying. It involves some C and (not too clearly psuedocode), and
shortly DTD. I have also marked the top section up so that with a jQuery
widget, it will
Hi Wave communities,
I am new to Wave project and looking forward to contribute to the
success of Wave as incubator project.
One suggestion if its better to send JIRA email notifications to
wave-dev list instead of wave-commits list.
The reasoning is that people may want to know about JIRA cases
Hi all,
is there a possible solution to disable Register a new account function?
So that only authorised user can create user-accounts.
Or to use something like LDAP, or XMPP user account integration?
Thanks!
Von meinem iPad gesendet
Hi All,
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 21:43, Yuri Z vega...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding disabling registration: there's no such property in the server
configuration, however, you can just remove the link in
AuthenticationPage.gxp and then remove the mapping to the registration
servlet in the
Where have you written this?
Did you manage to get site access?
Also, are you sure Federation Protocol is a good name for the c/s
protocol when the wave server protocol itself is also called wave
Federation Protocol. I hate (really) hate wasting time discussing
names but don't you think people
Theres lots of ideas here, but maybe better discussed in a more
general apache wave thread? Almost all of this is server/server stuff
that would effect the wfp as a whole - not directly relevant to trying
to make a common c/s standard to connect to wave servers.
Not sure you will get many replies
I would definitely not have Federation in the name. Wave Client Server
Protocol.
If you want to be cute and stay with Firefly, call it Independent Protocol --
Oh... thats not going to work.
Independent Client Server Protocol ?
On May 30, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Adrian Cochrane wrote:
I just
I thought I said that this is NOT the client protocol, I'll get to that
later, I'm just clarifying the existing Federation protocol.
--
Adrian Cochrane
alci...@eml.cc
On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:50 -0500, Perry Smith pedz...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would definitely not have Federation in the name.
11 matches
Mail list logo