On 18 June 2011 11:10, Paul Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > how would p2p share the burden?
It wouldn't - I meant that a standard c/s for the existing wave standard would share the burden because many people could make clients for it. (rather then at the moment, where it takes a fair bit of server knowledge to make anything that interfaces with wiab) I see p2p as a complete separate project. Like "futurewave" or "bluesky super protocol" or something. But not really wave at all. I'm advocating merely that traditional wave development, specifically standardising and documenting the c/s, continues separately to any discussions and future plans regarding new server protocols. -Thomas I mean wave isn't like file share. c/s there is > less replication of heavy lifting no? I think if anything cloud technology > will > be involved with wave. > > > > I agree the onus is on the person coming up with the potential technology to > demonstrate that it would work. Understanding the nature of the problem is the > first step in design. > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, 18 June, 2011 2:45:31 > Subject: Re: protocols > > May I suggest this be split of into a complete separate project? > > While there may be huge potential in a p2p system that does "wave-ish" > things, surely it wouldn't actually be wave? At the very least the > vast majority of the code would be different no? The ideas being > talked about seem pretty far removed from whats here now. > > I'm concerned that while trying to pursue ideas for this, development > on wave itself - as it stands- will slow down and we might end up with > neither. If people here do manage to develop a p2p system that does > everything wave does, then of course wave itself will be made > redundant - but thats a pretty far goal for now. > > The more modest (and imho, realistic for the moment) requirement of > having wfp more or less as it stands, but with the servers supporting > a nice documented c/s protocol is still very usefull in the short > term. Making it easy for others to make wave clients will open up lots > of cross-platform applications as well as lifting some of the > development effort from Apaches wiab web client. > > -Thomas > > > > > ~~~~~~ > Reviews of anything, by anyone; > www.rateoholic.co.uk > Please try out my new site and give feedback :) > > > > On 14 June 2011 18:00, Nick Lombard <[email protected]> wrote: >> I also add my +1 for distributed data and a stern move away from >> legacy client - server topology. >> >> Some thoughts/suggestions that might answer some of the >> questions/concerns raised or create more questions, whichever you >> like. =) >> >> It is worth our time to consider that outside of the wave protocol we >> have access to other facilities to contact and transfer information to >> the contacts/members/contributors of a wave ie. e-mail, sms, tweets, >> etc, etc. Therefor in the same fashion as BitTorrent using .torrent >> files you could imagine sending a .wave file for example via e-mail as >> an invite which can inform the wave client with what it requires. >> Using PEX and DHTs, or similar, in stead of a centralized tracker >> tracking the swarm/wave members can be located. Where there is a >> concern that most if not all members will not be available for periods >> long enough to completely sync data sufficiently I could envision the >> use of spectators or minutes keeping clients with fixed internet >> connections and longer availability to distribute and seed the data to >> the contributing members more efficiently. I don't see dynamic IP as a >> huge concern since you will be connecting to others when you return to >> the discussion and in the event of an address change can then update >> that information with them. In the unlikely event that you cannot find >> even one member to re-connect with, again the use of alternative >> communication protocols will suffice to resolve the panic. >> >> Security concerns, I would suggest to be addressed via PKC and by >> utilizing Onion and/or Garlic routing of packets between members or >> other non members of the current wave for that matter, would make >> deciphering communications, albeit public, very difficult if not >> entirely impossible. There has been a lot of thought put into a secure >> messaging protocol http://www.nico.schottelius.org/software/ceofhack/ >> which aim to solve just that and might be worth a look at. >> >> My 2 cents... >> >> -- >> Nick Lombard >> footprint: www.jigsoft.co.za >> >
