I would definitely not have "Federation" in the name. "Wave Client Server Protocol".
If you want to be cute and stay with Firefly, call it "Independent Protocol" -- Oh... thats not going to work. "Independent Client Server Protocol" ? On May 30, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Adrian Cochrane wrote: > 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 >
