I didn't want to lead again, but I want to know, what is the setup for wave protocols.org? What would take to make it a site like micheal described? -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected]
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:18 -0700, "Adrian Cochrane" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class
