Thanks Alex.
Functional descriptions are excellent. By "How x should be done (in another
language)" I really meant a list of things that the code needs to be able to
do to work with WiaB - so slightly more specific than just 'what it does' -
'what it needs to do' or 'what it is supposed to do' is more helpful.
--
Nathanael Abbotts

Email: [email protected]
Wave: [email protected]
Twitter: @natabbotts (http://twitter.com/natabbotts)



On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 03:56, Alex North <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for offering to lead improvements to the docs, Nathanael. I'd be
> enthusiastic to advise and provide knowledge to fill the gaps for anyone
> building some documentation. For the items you mentioned:
>
>  - OT: we are very aware the documentation is lacking. The sad fact is that
> the algorithms we ended up with are very complex in a way that doesn't lend
> itself to succinct description. Nevertheless Googlers are working on
> producing more full documentation of the algorithms involved. I'm not aware
> of anything that still needs to be implemented (though there are plenty of
> ideas of things that could be)
> - Client/server protocol: I'm working on design and implementation right
> now. The initial proposal for messages exchanged is
> http://www.waveprotocol.org/protocol/design-proposals/clientserver-protocol,
> which will evolve in response to feedback and implementation. I don't
> believe any encryption/signing is required above what some transport like
> HTTPS provides.
> - Federation: I'm not sure the WIAB community should produce instructions
> on how to write code beyond a functional description of the protocol. I hope
> our code comes to serve as an explanation, but documentation describing how
> code works (as opposed to what it does) tends to rot quickly.
>
> A.
>
> On 11 December 2010 21:24, Nathanael Abbotts <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> As the project plans to move to a new home at Apache, I feel quite
>> strongly that it would be a very good idea to draft up some whitepapers (or
>> similar) clarifying some things that there appears to be quite a bit of
>> confusion about.
>> Good code requires good planning and good documentation, and so far, I
>> haven't seen much planning or documentation regarding a couple of very
>> important things:
>>
>>    - Operational Transformation
>>       - OT is one of the fundamental backends of the Wave Protocol, but
>>       the OT whitepaper is extremely lacking. For example, I got more 
>> information
>>       on the subject from a blog 
>> post<http://www.codecommit.com/blog/java/understanding-and-applying-operational-transformation>than
>>  from the whitepaper.
>>       - Detail is needed on the following:
>>          - The algorithms used by the project currently.
>>          - What still needs to be implemented.
>>       - Client implementation
>>       - More detail is needed on exactly what a client that wants to make
>>       use of the client-server protocol should do, e.g.
>>          - Encryption/Signing
>>          - Message protocols
>>       - Federation Protocol
>>       - Again, not just a 'how it works', but 'how you should do it if
>>       implementing a server in a different language'
>>
>> I hope to see some of these appearing soon, and would be more than happy
>> to write them myself, if someone would kindly inform me on them.
>> --
>> Nathanael Abbotts
>>
>> Email: [email protected]
>> Wave: [email protected]
>> Twitter: @natabbotts (http://twitter.com/natabbotts)
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Wave Protocol" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected]<wave-protocol%[email protected]>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Wave Protocol" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<wave-protocol%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
>

Reply via email to