there was https://github.com/danopia/ruby-on-sails you can see if their implementation could work for it.
POW - https://github.com/alcinnz/PyOfWave On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Perry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > >
