I just typed it up on my computer and I haven't got site access yet and am waiting to be told how to get in.
This protocol is the same server-server protocol, but I am to clarify certain sections. -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected] On Tue, 31 May 2011 00:47 +0200, "Thomas Wrobel" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again
