I agree with everything your saying in this eMail. I would be proud to represent PyOfWave on the site. -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected]
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:15 -0400, "Michael MacFadden" <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to chime in. My hope was that waveprotocol.org would be the > pristine place to discuss the protocols dealing with wave. We should be > moving all of the Wave in a Box stuff off of waveprotocol.org and making > it clear that it is the home of the protocol working group. We just > haven't gotten much tracking on the Apache Wave site yet. Two comments: > > 1) I think we need to have some official sing up for the group that will > be the initial protocol stewards. > > 2) I hope that the client server protocol and the federation protocol > both get managed here. > > ~Michael > > > On May 31, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Adrian Cochrane wrote: > > > 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 > > > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be
