Basically, I don't see much wrong with the existing Federation protocol, just unclear in certain areas. I'm just starting with Federation to get the writing style asked for down (and I'll clarify delta transmission, add restrict annotation, and change wave links to a URL, separate standard, rather than separate annotation).
After Federation, I'm going get to non-browser-based Gadgets for ease of offline implementation, nonHTTP client protocol (and depending on contentious, I may do a HTTP one too), and a standard for groups and embedding. These other protocols weren't well standardized (and in later cases, quite proprietary) and I'm seeking to standardize this with contentiousness of Wave in a Box and ShareJS (and I represent PyOfWave). -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected] On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:43 +0100, "Paul Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote: > To be honest I'm not clear what most of this discussion is about either. > What is > the massive opposition to the existing federation protocol? > > > If you want to come up with an independent protocol then that could be > done > independently. Otherwise you could discuss the problem with the existing > protocol. > > The c/s protocol obviously isn't the federated part. Or it is mearly the > disribution arm of federation ( If you are talking about optimistic > client > tools). > > There was a guy that damned the protocol (mainly becuase he had a beef > against > google's handling of gwave, and slowness to open source) and decided the > STMP > would be a good platform for his protocol but I can't think of of a more > backwards choice. It is that false analogy with email again. Just becuase > it is > a step up from email doesn't mean it is email 2.0. Trying to get the > email > usership is a nice idea in principle, but personally I think the > technology > should speak for its self in many applications, including ones > traditionally > linked to email. > > > I like the idea of bringing users to wave, not by boasting of an amazing > technology that they will definately need, but through familiarity. > Basically > bringing it too them, and allowing them to get used to the unfamiliar > through > the familiar. But that is entirely personal, based on implementation. I'd > barely > mention wave at all, but that because i have the user base in mind. > > > There was a separate discussion about models and how the existing > conversation > model is tied in. I always felt wave isn't the conversation model, and > the > conversation model is just one albiet a common and reasonable default, > but by no > means the only useful model or indeed the only conversation model. I'm > interested in how you could implement federated models and agents and > even have > in in effect a wave application framework that is more powerful than open > social. But there are some pretty big security considerations. I always > felt > that robots are limitied, but can be still used for some critial > applications. > > > Personally I think the WIAB has pretty clear objectives, and that is to > get he > basics right. If anything doen't belong "in the box" It should be an > addon, or > separate project. The basics are going to take some time to get right > anyway. It > is still to this day a proof of concept project. Wholesale federation > hasn't > happened. You can simulate all you want, but you are not going to predict > the > wilderness. > > > However I have always belived there should be a separation from the the > protocol > and Apache Wave. Others felt for practical reasons they should remain on > the > same site at least initially. > > > Again semantics doesn't get you very far, however there was serious point > about > the firefly quip. Terms like 'blip' really confused users of gwave, it > was just > unnecessary. It made it seem less serious, more yahoo rather than google, > but > when people found it wasn't the social media that they are used to they > moved > on. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, 31 May, 2011 2:32:21 > Subject: Re: protocols > > 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. -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class
