> Can this be done as a very well documented and commented piece of code that > actually runs? I can understand > code far quicker than I can understand > TechSpeak. >
+1 > Pick a language like C (not Java or C++). Something that clearly shows > precise intent. It can be a pseudo > language but then we can't test it by running it. I essentially don't know any C, but I certainly approve of usable code so I guess I could try to learn unless as nothing too language specific is needed. In the end though someones going to have to convert it to Java needed for wiab, python for POW and Javascript for webclients side no? Downside of C for a c/s example lib might be no easy testing as theres no server written in C? > > After we're done, we'd not only have a spec but also something useful -- > working code. > > On May 29, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > >> Well, thats the problem, I haven't either ;) >> I'm currently contributing a bit to the w3c POI standard, but its more >> general advice on whats needed/useful for AR then solid contributions. >> My experience is pretty low really, feeling my way. >> I also don't know anything really about protocols beyond my own bespoke >> stuff. >> >> regarding the name; I'm not sure thats such a good idea as its a bit >> confusable with the "wave federation protocol" itself no? The c/s >> standard might be similar in some ways but it wont be the same. >> >> >> >> On 29 May 2011 13:24, Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Oh, and Thomas Wrobel, I'd appreciate your help. I've never written a >>> real standard before. >>> >>> How about dropping the "Con". "The Federation", less Firefly more Wave. >>> -- >>> Adrian Cochrane >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 04:05 -0700, "Adrian Cochrane" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Well, I just thought that if the name Wave came from Firefly, so should >>>> it's concertium. >>>> >>>> To be clear, I'd take the task of reworking the standards by placing my >>>> current plans online and taking all the criticism I can. >>>> >>>> As for using the original standards, it's just because then I wasn't >>>> reworking the standards. As for Federation, I'd like that to be simalor >>>> to the current standard (since it's the architecture of PyOfWave). >>>> -- >>>> Adrian Cochrane >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:54 +0200, "Thomas Wrobel" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Like call it Moya then, from Farscape ;) >>>>> (hay, it did last longer....) >>>>> >>>>> On 29 May 2011 12:52, Paul Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> face palm. more firefly references...ominous :/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Sent: Sun, 29 May, 2011 9:58:12 >>>>>> Subject: protocols >>>>>> >>>>>> avid Hearnden <[email protected]> Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:36 AM >>>>>>> Reply-To: [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>> To: wave-dev <[email protected]> >>>>>>> There is a technical roadmap (i.e., rich design docs etc, published >>>>>>> somewhere on the site - let me know if you can't find them) for a new >>>>>>> protocol that overcomes many of the issues with the current one, and >>>>>>> works >>>>>>> much better with more advanced features (e.g. diff-on-open). I don't >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> it's a moving target - the doc has been ready for a few months, and I >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> think anyone has significant changes to it in mind. However, AFAIK, >>>>>>> nobody >>>>>>> who's available has signed up to do the work, so there is no timeline >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> it. I was keen to get into it a few months back, and Alex North was >>>>>>> too, >>>>>>> but both our availabilities have significantly diminished. It's >>>>>>> probably >>>>>>> about 2-3 weeks of work for someone to see it through end to end >>>>>>> though. It >>>>>>> was previously blocked by a few things that have now been implemented. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would strongly encourage not building too much on the current >>>>>>> protocol, >>>>>>> since it has a number of known limitations. The new protocol is >>>>>>> simpler and >>>>>>> achieves a better separation of functionality. If there are a few >>>>>>> people >>>>>>> (PyOfWave?) with the will and a bit of time, then it is very achievable >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> get it rolled out. >>>>>> >>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> I will be proud to go over it, but (because I want to be liberal) I'd >>>>>> first ask to start >>>>>> with a forum or mailing list which I'd refer to as 'The Confederate' >>>>>> after Firefly T.V. >>>>>> series which gave Wave it's name. I've already exchanged some messages >>>>>> with josephg on GitHub on >>>>>> the shareJS Wave project on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I planned to work with, if I didn't get proper standardization, is >>>>>> the extended original >>>>>> standards (to make up for some lacking features I say), a non-HTTP >>>>>> alternative to Simple Data >>>>>> Protocol, an fully designed Gadget API in a derivative of CoffeeScript >>>>>> (to simplify offline clients), >>>>>> and a URL scheme to serve for embedding, WaveThis, and a alias query for >>>>>> groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll get started on it provided that I am provided with the necessary >>>>>> information on how to do >>>>>> it. However on my project, I've got some work on PyOfWave to finish. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: >>> http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html >>> >>> > >
