> The site or mailing list doesn't matter so much as the notion of openness. > Also > developing from that perspective gives it much broader mandate technically.
> In defence it is quite a complicated problem. I don't know if it can be made > less complicated, but it fair to say it is easy to underestimate the > complexity. Absolutely agree > I think if the protocol needs a major change then best do it now. Having a > dedicated area for protocol. models, and c/s would be a great thing. +1 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Paul Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > It is kind of a chicken an egg situation. I'm glad that gwave fell by the way > side, or else there was a risk of needing to provide compatibility with > undesirable standards. > > > WAIB is still going to be proof of concept for quite some time. It is not > going > to stop being without widespread federation, and that is not going to happen > without consensus. > > > You argument is because wave is not yet diverse, wave should be insular? I say > sooner or later there should be separation in order to encourage others to > develop wave technology in the widest scope. > > > The site or mailing list doesn't matter so much as the notion of openness. > Also > developing from that perspective gives it much broader mandate technically. > > I wasn't synicial about gwave, so much as I knew some management are used to > and > would believe in centralised systems more (especially the business minds), and > wouldn't see the value in all out federation as a product. I think that was > made > pretty clear when the product was dropped. Had gwave done better it would > have > created two tier waveosphere, and federation would be somewhat of a side > salad. > > > I think if the protocol needs a major change then best do it now. Having a > dedicated area for protocol. models, and c/s would be a great thing. > > > I do agree though, that this in-between stage transferring to apache needs to > be > completed first. > > > In defence it is quite a complicated problem. I don't know if it can be made > less complicated, but it fair to say it is easy to underestimate the > complexity. > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, 3 June, 2011 11:08:26 > Subject: Re: protocols > > "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 >>> >>> >> >
