IMHO, for WIAB developing purposes there's no real difference which OS to use.
2011/7/15 Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> > err..sure. > That could take awhile, still getting set up here. :) > Got the Wave Panel Harness to work, but eclipse refuses to make a > connection for debugging (firewall off). Failed to connect to remote > VM. Connection refused. > > Thinking though it might not be worth my time getting to the bottom of > this error as eventually I'll need to work on server-side stuff too. > Instead I'll try to get a working server again on my ubuntu netbook > and try to connect to that. I managed to do this before way back with > fedone....think I just changed two lines temporary in the client code > to point it at a different IP. > > -Thomas > > ps. If your wondering why I dont just do both on the same machine, its > because I have most of my work set up on my windows desktop machine, > which isnt the best place the run a wave server. > > On 15 July 2011 19:25, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Great, let me know if you run out of the StarterProjects :) > > > > 2011/7/15 Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> > > > >> Been away a bit, so sorry for the delay. > >> > >> Thanks for all the information, this is incredibly useful. > >> > >> I'm going to start with doing one of the..well, starter projects and > >> see how well I handle that. If that goes smooth I'll investigating how > >> the protocol is currently working (code-wise) and see if I can see the > >> steps needed to convert to the new model. This could take awhile. > >> > >> Thanks again for the pointers, > >> Thomas > >> > >> > >> On 11 July 2011 10:48, David Hearnden <hearn...@google.com> wrote: > >> > Hi Thomas, > >> > > >> > Instructions are at: http://www.waveprotocol.org/code > >> > > >> > A good starting point would be to check out the code, and build and > run > >> WIAB > >> > in development mode (ant compile-gwt-dev). In the debug log in the > web > >> > client, you'll see all the messages being transferred over the > websocket. > >> > The messages are JSON, and their structure is defined by some protos, > and > >> > enveloped as (see WaveWebSocketClient$MessageWrapper): > >> > { sequenceNumber: <unused I think>, messageType: <message class name>, > >> > message: <object> } > >> > > >> > WaveWebSocketClient essentially defines the client side of the > protocol, > >> and > >> > it's very trivial. Over a bidirectional stream (websocket), the > client > >> > sends an open request (ProtocolOpenRequest), some number of submit > >> requests > >> > (ProtocolSubmitRequest), and then closes the web socket. After the > open > >> > request, the client receives a constant stream of > ProtocolWaveletUpdates, > >> > containing either wavelet snapshots or wavelet deltas, interleaved > with > >> > ProtocolSubmitResponses, which contain the success/failure of the > >> client's > >> > own submits. Details about those particular messages can be found in > >> > waveclient-rpc.proto, but the previous sentence above covers almost > the > >> > entire protocol, and it's expressed quite simply in the code. The bit > I > >> > left out is the authentication messages, which I never looked into, > but > >> the > >> > code looks pretty straightforward. > >> > > >> > The problems with the protocol are: > >> > * it does not support opening at particular versions, which is > required > >> for > >> > diff-on-open > >> > * it bundles state and deltas over the same channel, rather than a > >> RESTful > >> > state service plus a streaming delta service, > >> > * a few others that have escaped my memory (something about closing > >> > connections? or losing access because of a participant change?). > Listing > >> > the diff between the old and new protocol behaviour should produce a > >> > complete list. > >> > > >> > Hope that helps, > >> > > >> > -Dave > >> > > >> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> oh, quick question; wheres the current wiab repository? > >> >> > >> >> ~~~~~~ > >> >> Reviews of anything, by anyone; > >> >> www.rateoholic.co.uk > >> >> Please try out my new site and give feedback :) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 9 July 2011 23:11, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Guess I could have a go at those - they seem client based stuff so > I > >> >> > should be able to handle it. > >> >> > I'll download a new checkout now and have a look. > >> >> > > >> >> > However, Can I have confirmation of the state of that proposed c/s > >> >> > protocol however as Joseph didn't know? > >> >> > > >> >> > At he moment Im a guy that doesn't know how it works at the moment, > >> >> > not knowing what exactly should be implemented/changed, and unsure > if > >> >> > he has the skills needed to do it :p > >> >> > > >> >> > Perhaps I'm wrong, or being pessimistic, but at the moment I I feel > >> >> > like I could fix 10-20 client side bugs or feature requests in the > >> >> > time it will take me to understand how the wiab client and server > >> >> > should communicate with eachother. > >> >> > > >> >> > -Thomas > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On 9 July 2011 19:40, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> A great way to familiarize yourself with WIAB is by comepleting > >> >> >> StarterProject< > >> >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=labels+%3D+StarterProject > >> >> > > >> >> >> . > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2011/7/9 Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Thomas Wrobel < > darkfl...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >>> >> As far as I know, the client-server protocol for wave in a box > is > >> >> >>> >> pretty stable at this point. Its documented here: > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > http://www.waveprotocol.org/protocol/design-proposals/clientserver-protocol > >> >> >>> >> ... Though that documentation is probably out of date. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > It was my understanding it wasnt yet implemented? > >> >> >>> > There was an older thread here about it; > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-wave-dev/201105.mbox/%3cbanlktimi_a6zkpsrxqqvhwysrfhh35-...@mail.gmail.com%3e > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > David Hearnden there said; > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > "I would strongly encourage not building too much on the > current > >> >> >>> protocol, > >> >> >>> > since it has a number of known limitations. The new protocol > is > >> >> simpler > >> >> >>> and > >> >> >>> > achieves a better separation of functionality. " > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Which put me off doing a anything with the code as-is. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Has this changed now? > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I don't know - I haven't been working with the wave in a box code > >> for > >> >> >>> the last 6 months or so. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> If you care about the client/server API enough to dig through > the > >> >> >>> >> code, writing up some proper documentation describing what you > >> find > >> >> >>> >> would be great. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Id be happy to - but that might be overestimating my skills > >> somewhat. > >> >> >>> > My java skills uptill now have purely been GWT or Android based > >> >> stuff. > >> >> >>> > Haven't ever done any server stuff, and the wiab code is a > rather > >> >> >>> > steep learning curve every time I try getting to grips with > bits > >> of > >> >> >>> > it. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I worked with the wave / wave in a box code for about half a > year, > >> and > >> >> >>> I still feel like that whenever I dive in there. Despite > referring > >> to > >> >> >>> (& editing) those protobuf files maybe a dozen times, it still > took > >> me > >> >> >>> 5-10 minutes to find them again. You can still get work done with > >> that > >> >> >>> feeling, but it is slow going. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> If you want a good client/server protocol for wiab, familiarise > >> >> >>> yourself with the WIAB code and implement those changes Hearnden > was > >> >> >>> talking about. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> -J > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > -Thomas > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
