I thought I said that this is NOT the client protocol, I'll get to that later, I'm just clarifying the existing Federation protocol. -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected]
On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:50 -0500, "Perry Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
