How about HTML with plenty of pseudocode and clear semantics (a dl tree, for libraries, etc). I'll be comfortable with that, and then we can agree on who'll implement it. I don't want to be creating another implementation for the standards, we can test it in our own projects.
ShareJS is JavaScript both sides with node.js. -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected] On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:55 -0500, "Perry Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 29, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > > > On 29 May 2011 16:15, 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. > > > > Not insane - but I think we need one testable primary implementation > > to deal with the "generic" bugs and issues that arise as the c/s is > > developed before the implementation specific bugs. > > > > The more I think however I'm not sure we can avoid either java or > > python - at least for the server side. We need to plug into an > > existing server as I cant think of another way to develop a c/s for a > > wave server. (and we dont want to have to make our own server!). Not > > sure of any options really :? > > > > We could, however, have anything we like for client-side code examples. > > If the majority of the client side is going to actually use javascript, > then lets use that on the client side. > > I wonder... can Rhino[1] hook in to another Java application? Then we > could use javascript on both sides and still test. > > [1] http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/ > > > > >> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class
