"The first is that protocol development should be backed by working open source code"
+1 On 3 June 2011 09:01, Soren Lassen <[email protected]> wrote: > The waveprotocol.org site is maintained by contributors who are active > Apache Wave committers. The site is a mix of stuff to do with the WIAB > code base (designs, documentation, howtos) and protocol and APIs > (specs, white papers, documentation). The first part should definitely > move over to the Apache Wave web site and wiki (all help is welcome!). > It sounds like we want to let the other stuff stay on the > waveprotocol.org site in anticipation of us handing it off to a future > "wave protocol" organization/foundation at some point in the future. > > However, I strongly recommend that we keep it all together under the > Apache Wave umbrella for a while longer. There are two reasons for > this. The first is that protocol development should be backed by > working open source code and I think the WIAB code base is the only > comprehensive implementation at the moment (please correct me if I > misjudge the scope and maturity of PyOfWave or other open source > implementations) and therefore it's not yet productive to separate the > two. The second reason why I'd like to keep WIAB and the protocol > together, for now, is that we are still in the process of building the > open source/protocol community and I don't feel we have sufficient > traffic of contributions and discussions yet to seed two different > mailing lists. > > I hope we have established in the past six months that Apache Wave is > open to ideas and contributions and Adrian and everyone else who would > like to contribute to the protocol can do it within Apache Wave for > now. Specifically, Adrian, I would like to suggest that you contribute > to the wave protocol within the Apache Wave project, at least for now. > Just like with code contributions, it's best if you begin by > describing the changes you would like to make, e.g., as diffs of specs > and documentation, or post new docs for inclusion on the site, and > then let the committers upload the changes to the site (or to the spec > and whitepapers directories in the source code repository). Needless > to say, we'll need to build consensus about any changes we make to the > spec, and we need working code in WIAB, but please start by posting > the ideas and suggestions in this mailing list. > > Soren > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Adrian Cochrane <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >> >
