For P2P security and privacy we could try to use some of concepts https://github.com/campadrenalin/ConcurrenTree folks using to build next-gen OT system, also - if someone going to reinvent Wave i'm suggesting their ConcurrentTree work as it, with all respect to Wave coders, can be superior to many Google Wave's concepts and it is designed with many new and awesome features in mind. here is CTree's Design Wave: https://wave.google.com/wave/#restored:wave:googlewave.com%252Fw%252BlP8y3JRBM
and Security system concept 'campadrenalin' gave me to make Wave a better place) https://docs1.google.com/drawings/d/1iKiZJhtYBNrl8gm0A7rnjFyLwqBXtRvVFo6AJS0XcYw/edit?hl=en&authkey=CPDB2IQH&pli=1 On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 May 2011 21:52, Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > Client side, I'm happy to test in my project - but there needs to be a > server end to connect too in order to do that! > > >> >> 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 >> >> >
