Nelson, I personally have no objections for using Maven to manage dependencies. If you can submit a patch it would be great. Yuri
Sent from my iPhone On 11 באפר 2011, at 16:28, Nelson Silva <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe WAIB should be split into modules. If we adopted Maven as build > tool it would really make things a lot simpler. > We should have pure api modules and then default impl packages. This would > allow anyone to contribute sample client, server, etc implementations which > could then be integrated into WAIB. > > On 11-04-2011 14:07, Thomas Wrobel wrote: >>> On of the current things with WiaB seems to be that the server and client >>> are all rolled in to one. For people wanting desktop clients, mobile >>> clients, etc, I think it is critical to have a well defined protocol for >>> the client and server to work together. >>> >>> ~Michael >> >> Couldn't possibly agree more with that! >> It would be nice if client development could be done relatively >> independently from server development, I think both would proceed >> faster if they wernt so tied together. >> >> -Thomas >> >>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: >>> >>>> Remember there is strong pro XMPP voices here too; >>>> http://www.process-one.net/en/blogs/article/xwave_a_tribute_to_google_wave_team/ >>>> >>>> I'm not sure who is right on a technical sense, but there is working >>>> xmpp based federations out there, are their any based on http? >>>> >>>> Regarding the c/s protocol - it makes somewhat sense anyway if it was >>>> more or less the same as the server/server one, seeing as they both >>>> basically have to exchange the same information to keep the document >>>> in sync. >>>> >>>> As I suggested on the recent poll,however, I think separating out the >>>> wiab webclient and using a lib for c/s protocol would help a lot. That >>>> way , even if different choices are made for the protocol later on, >>>> its just the lib that has to be changed. People could thus make >>>> clients with the protocol itself abstracted away. >>>> >>>> ~~~~~~ >>>> Reviews of anything, by anyone; >>>> www.rateoholic.co.uk >>>> Please try out my new site and give feedback :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10 April 2011 00:13, Michael MacFadden<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Nelson, >>>>> >>>>> There has been large debate on XMPP in wave. The general complaint is >>>>> that the protocol is to verbose. My two cents are that one of the main >>>>> points of XMPP was a verbose XML human readable protocol with standard >>>>> extension mechanisms. However wave uses protobufs and base64 encodes all >>>>> the data in the XMPP stanzas. The data exchanged by wave is not human >>>>> readable, xml based, or part of the XMPP standard. That defeats the >>>>> purpose of using the XMPP standard in the first place. In my opinion >>>>> this basically relegates XMPP to just a delivery envelope, and one that >>>>> adds on a lot of overhead. >>>>> >>>>> Also XMPP's dependance on long lived TCP connections to maintain the xml >>>>> stream, there are difficulties providing services to clients that are >>>>> frequently disconnected. For these reasons there is talk of adding a >>>>> "raw" http transfer mechanism for federation. Until that is worked out I >>>>> would hesitate to entertain the idea of injecting XMPP in to the c/s >>>>> protocol. >>>>> >>>>> ~Michael >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Nelson Silva wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> XMPP over websockets was proposed as a draft >>>>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket-00) and >>>>>> ejabberd now has a sample module to support it: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://blog.superfeedr.com/xmpp-over-websockets/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't it be great to use XMPP for both C/S and federation ? or is it >>>>>> too verbose ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just wanted to share this with the list. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nelson >>>>> >>> >
