I must concur with Thomas. A p2p Wave system would require users to leave their computers on so as to collect updates, and the computers would require static IPs, neither of which are commonly provided. (De-)Centralized providers would provide this much better. It would also be more convenient because users would not need to download clients.
However, I have eMail systems that are on a single computer server and client, so users could provide that if they want. Besides, there's only one extra "complication" for Wave systems with client-server architecture. -- Adrian Cochrane [email protected] On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:18 +0200, "Thomas Wrobel" <[email protected]> wrote: > ya - Looking over the pirate pad, I'm still not sure a p2p based > requirement for a wave system is going to be more simple to implement. > Scalability and path finding issues come into play. (even traditional > p2p networks use central servers, torrents etc to help clients find > eachother). Then you get into storage/security issues when handily > private data. > > Nathanael Abbotts ConcurrentTreeColdStorage > (https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1iKiZJhtYBNrl8gm0A7rnjFyLwqBXtRvVFo6AJS0XcYw/edit?hl=en_GB&authkey=CPDB2IQH) > seems a neat solution for anominious (ie, no login) private access to > documents, but Im not sure how scalable it is. If you have 10,000 > documents and potentially thousands of participants, wouldn't it need > to check each key against each doc...on each client with the data? > And how would realtime updates work :? > How would you invite someone to a doc when they arnt online? (that is, > how would you get the "key" to them) > > Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stickwith how its working - as > I've said, I'll be more usefull client side then any server side > stuff. > Maybe other people with more knowledge of this stuff can weigh in here? > > Still, if the goal is to make wave easier to implement, I think adding > p2p wont work to that end - it will only make writing a client more > complex. > [/2 and a bit cents] > > The other thing...to everyone on this thread....is it possible to work > on client/server and sever/server protocols at the same time? If there > is really going to be big changes to the server side, wont this mess > up any client/server communications requirements? > I'm very keen to get a working c/s protocol, but at the same time, I > want to target my freetime where its more usefull and dont fancy > trying to (yet again) develop for another moving target thats going to > be useless in a few months. (as what happened to both FedOne and > PygoWave). > > -Thomas > [/keen to get on with actual coding] > > ~~~~~~ > Reviews of anything, by anyone; > www.rateoholic.co.uk > Please try out my new site and give feedback :) > > > > On 12 June 2011 23:56, ya knygar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello! > > > > according to the latest talks about rethinking the Federation protocols > > Were created a federation working group pad: > > > > http://piratepad.net/HET5ojzCXM > > > > briefly named - "Call for Participation in building a Federative > > XMPP-Wave-OT Social Networking Consortium" > > > > please, participate as much as possible in any of these fields, especially > > in a new protocol draft - reviewing that was discussed above. > > > > it highly depends on all interested Apache Wave members help, to make > > that Federation and, probably, Wave Consortium a reality, > > > > at least for Wave alike servers, we as a PyOfWave team are keen on it > > for a long time now, doing all what was possible to projects - follow > > that WaveProtocol.org standards and relate to Apache Wave as a > > reference implementation. We understand that - there was a busy - > > transferring and infrastructure uprising time - for WIAB, > > however - there is a high demand for changes in protocol, as you can > > see on that pad, we have done our best for creating a Wave Consortium > > community again, so, it's your turn to help. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > >
