Where have you written this? Did you manage to get site access? Also, are you sure "Federation Protocol" is a good name for the c/s protocol when the wave server protocol itself is also called "wave Federation Protocol". I hate (really) hate wasting time discussing names but don't you think people might get confused? Maybe something in front or behind to clarify its purpose? Federation Hock? Federation Link? Something that indicates its the client to server protocol rather then the server to server one.
On 30 May 2011 21:23, Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > P.S. Sorry about the last eMail, clicked send a bit early. > > 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 - One of many happy users: > http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html > >
