Java and Python frustrate and scare me. Python has lots of issues between even minor versions. Java has issues between platforms. In both of these languages, I've never had a pleasant user or developer experience.
I was going to suggest Ruby but didn't because I knew this was a Python/Java group. Would it be insane to have parallel implementations? That way, we would work out and clearly document any language specific details that might get hidden. On a different topic, can you point me to the POW work? Is that using Python in place of Java for the entire implementation? On May 29, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >>
