O.K., I got it online, but I didn't manage to get a codereview, the script didn't work after uploading changes to my clone. -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected]
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:03 -0700, "Adrian Cochrane" <[email protected]> wrote: > (I'm saying it all up here because there's enough inline comments, can't > wait till Wave is ready :-) > > I fully agree with you about now the time's for redoing the standards. > I've nearly completed the Federation rewrite and will soon be working on > some other standards that weren't standardized in GWave. I have changed > some things that weren't clear to me in the original standard (hashed > versions and wavelet-document interaction) and extended the format to > include things it said it didn't include (attachments and forms, didn't > see how the rest were missing). > > PyOfWave at this state could be considered immature in terms of it being > early development, but I have no fear that development should speed up > soon due to raising popularity and extendability. And JShare, who I've > contacted isn't sure where to head in terms of Federation (JShare > provides Wave features to sites). Although we're not quite ready, I > think that the protocols I'm writing should help us get to that stage. > > Expect to see my standards tomorrow. > -- > Adrian Cochrane > [email protected] > > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:21 -0700, "Soren Lassen" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:57 AM, 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. > > > > That hurt :-( > > > > > 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? > > > > No. Apache Wave attempts to be open and inclusive. For now, I think > > protocol work will get the best exposure on this mailing list and will > > reach those who care the most, therefore I think it will be > > counterproductive to take it somewhere else now. > > > > Please note that the structure of Apache Wave should not and cannot > > silence ideas and debate. The wave-dev mailing list and the Apache > > Wave sites and code repository have no exclusive rights on discussion, > > documentation, and implementation of all things wave. It's brilliant > > that folks are developing ideas and writing code elsewhere (for > > instance, Adrian's PyOfWave and Joseph's ShareJS are great stuff). But > > wave-dev is a great forum to discuss ideas with the larger wave > > community and Apache Wave has useful processes to review and build > > consensus about protocol changes and apply these changes to the shared > > specification. > > > > > I say > > > sooner or later there should be separation in order to encourage others to > > > develop wave technology in the widest scope. > > > > I agree. > > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, let's move the non-protocol stuff from waveprotocol.org to the > > Apache Wave web site and wiki. Unfortunately, things have been going > > too slow, because everyone is pressed for time. All help is welcome. > > > > Meanwhile I encourage everyone to contribute to improving the > > protocols and their implementation on wave-dev, on waveprotocol.org, > > and in the Apache Wave code base. > > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, there are many concerns to keep in mind but there are definitely > > things that we would all like to simplify. See for instance the second > > half of David and Christian's talk about Concurrent Data & OT > > Alternatives on day 3 of the Wave Summit: > > http://www.waveprotocol.org/wave-protocol-summit/wave-summit-talks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be > -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
