O.K., I'll put put it through your system when I'm done. However, I agree with Paul to say that the protocols should be handled independantly of any of our systems. I was hoping waveprotocols.org could be filled with the protocols I discussed without anything implementation specific, and that method wouldn't allow me to do all I want to do with the site.
Just checking, reading in on your silence on some questions, you like my writing style (I have clarified that it's a clarification) and you don't have any concerns in implementing the protocols I'd put up at this point. I also get the sense people don't want Federation to change. If I don't get any response telling me I'm wrong, I'll assume I'm right. If people don't want Federation to change, I would like to suggest that a minimal Federation-Host be developed to power some decentralized waves on the site, and we can use Wave to develop further protocols. -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected] On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:35 -0700, "Soren Lassen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > Your contributions to the federation protocol are very welcome. The > spec at waveprotocol.org is generated from a master file in the > wave-protocol code repository: > http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/source/browse/#hg%2Fspec%2Ffederation > (The .html file is generated from the .rst master file.) > > There are other specs and white papers under the spec and whitepapers > top level directories in the repository. > > You can send changes to the spec for "code" review using the same > tools and processes as we use for source code. See: > http://www.waveprotocol.org/code/submitting-code > > Soren > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> 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 - The way an email service should be
