I have started writing the first standard, Federation Protocol, which (for reasons I already discussed) isn't changing much, but merely clarifying. It involves some C and (not too clearly psuedocode), and shortly DTD. I have also marked the top section up so that with a jQuery widget, it will collapse. I did this so as to follow Apple's HIG and only show what you want to read.
Please give me feedback on my writing. -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected] On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:17 +0300, "ya knygar" <[email protected]> wrote: > Adrian, about prototyping and pseudo-code please take a look at > https://github.com/JonathanAquino/noweb.py > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM, ya knygar <[email protected]> wrote: > > About XMPP, as long as Wave built on XMPP, > > > > are someone here want to participate in making federation with > > http://buddycloud.com/ , for example? > > > > by federation i mean - we have our real-time typing and other goods, > > they receive our messages when they are in major revisions, or > > kind of, > > or, maybe kind of combined client would be better? > > > > i understand - in case of real federation they should really want it > > to happen too, > > but, since we are all for one goal (secured, private, community-driven > > oss for ever-day social communications), i think it's completely > > possible.. > > and you? > > > > http://buddycloud.com/cms/node > > it looks like they are serious on intention of pushing > > another standard to XMPP.org > > > > also - there are > > > > https://project.jappix.com/ > > and > > http://onesocialweb.org/developers.html > > > > https://groups.google.com/group/onesocialweb/browse_thread/thread/5e9c4c0cf6a9ee4f > > (here is a thread on discussion kind of federation between them and > > Wave, actually) > > > > also: > > > > - nerds(by best meaning) from - http://about.psyc.eu/ that was there > > 'all the time' > > > > http://kune.ourproject.org/ folks > > using WiAB successfully > > > > http://ostatus.org/ with "an open standard for distributed status updates." > > > > talking about XMPP federation on D-Cent.org, soon according to > > d-cent.org/wiki > > > > i believe - a few others actual XMPP Social Networks Projects i can't > > remember now > > - like DiasporaX - https://github.com/bnolan/diaspora-x > > - > > > > - > > I'm sure - it can be a wonderful achievement for FLOSS > > community(whatever it means) if we could create or use some Open > > Networking Group > > where the federation between all these and other - at least - XMPP > > based - would be discussed.. > > > > I think - now is a best time for it - as most of major parties are > > mature enough to work productively > > But still in open - in-dev standards and protocols status - so can > > participate and implement what's needed for that federation to happen. > > > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Yuri Z <[email protected]> wrote: > >> AFAIK the GWT choice was made cause it allows to code once the OT module - > >> the same code works on the server and the client and no need to synchronize > >> the changes. Another advantage of GWT is the ability to render the waves on > >> the server side re-using the rendering code of the client side. Again - > >> write once but use twice on both server and client. > >> > >> 2011/5/30 Paul Thomas <[email protected]> > >> > >>> There was talk of getting rid of GWT a while back. I think it is useful > >>> for > >>> Java > >>> guys to prototype in, but it seems a bit of a monstrosity to me. There is > >>> frameworks like sproutcore, and you can hand roll with coffescript. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: Perry Smith <[email protected]> > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Sent: Sun, 29 May, 2011 21:28:05 > >>> Subject: Re: protocols > >>> > >>> > >>> On May 29, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> 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. > >>> > > >>> > Well, WiaB uses GWT for its webclient - so code wise its actualy Java > >>> > both sides, but then compiled to javascript. > >>> > >>> Yea. I thought about that but pulled back. I looked at GWT. I don't > >>> know > >>> if > >>> we say "foo" in GWT and that compiles to Javascript if that is really > >>> going > >>> to > >>> be "precisely" defined. GWT seems like it was moving rather fast six > >>> months ago > >>> so the translation of "foo" today may be a lot different than the > >>> translation of > >>> "foo" a year from now. > >>> > >>> GWT represents what I don't like about Java. It isn't really using Java > >>> directly but using things defined in Java. Each of those things would > >>> need > >>> to > >>> be defined. I've gotten the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that the > >>> average > >>> Java code could not get back to pure Java code without a tremendous amount > >>> of > >>> work. > >>> > >>> Now, it might be that since a protocol is rather simple, that the range of > >>> constructs used would be small. But, ultimately, any predefined construct > >>> (like > >>> an existing Java class or interface) would have to be defined in terms > >>> that > >>> could be verified. > >>> > >> > > > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software or over the web
