I agree in principle with what you've said. However, tangibly, look here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WAVE#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.ext.subversion%3Asubversion-project-tab
What's happening? The occasional bug fix? You understand how apache projects usually work right? (Try joining the couch db one). People start using the project because its useful. When they have problems / find bugs / want features some people come and become contributors. It's not happening here. The code base is hard to work with. A fully configured running instance of wiab is still... well, not terribly useful. There are _far too many features_ to work on all of them. No one (broadly speaking in the rest of the world) seems particularly interested with wiab in its current state. There is no roadmap forward to changing any of these things. *shrug* It just frustrates me to see that. Still, whatever. I shall now retreat to my github page and continue working there as before... :P cheers, Doug. On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Nathan Simpson <nathaniel.simp...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm not a WIAB contributor, but I'd like to contribute a lurker's > thoughts to this particular discussion. > > The fundamental innovation of Wave is that it recognizes that > instant messages, forum posts, blog entries, documents, and more are > all instances of what I call a "communication object" when I'm talking > to people about this. The difference between any of these is really > only notions of who can edit the objects (owner only, anyone, a small > team), on what timescale the object is expected to change, and the > scope of the intended audience. I think it's important to remember > this concept when developing Wave, because that is the particular > reason that Wave could be so many different things to so many > different people. It wasn't that it was a new thing so much as a new > way of recognizing that a bunch of old things are conceptually more > closely related than previously considered. A book is a > "communication object" that changes glacially (new editions, for > example) and has a wide target audience and limited authorship, while > a forum post changes much more quickly and is intended for a smaller, > but still wide audience. Other types of traditional documents may > have collaborative authorship and differing target scopes, etc, but > can still be considered examples of a "communication object" in the > sense I defined it above. > > I suppose my point is that as WIAB (hopefully) matures, the ability > to embed Waves in other types of content will return and be enhanced, > and interfaces to existing communication streams will improve. There > isn't really any need, in my opinion, to say that Wave is only good > for forums or only good for collaborative editing of internal > documents. Embedded waves could work fine as static or dynamic web > pages, as forum posts, as blog entries, as emails and internal > documents, etc. Waves in the traditional Google-ish interface work > well as instant messaging or asynchronous emailing, or for real-time > or near-real-time collaboration spaces. When you're looking at > communication objects instead of some labelled category, then what > defines what the object IS is the way that it's used - and the Wave > model really supports all of the above. > > As for WIAB, it seemed like activity slowed over the summer, but I'm > excited to see that it has picked up again and I'm looking forward to > the time that there will be a variety of Wave clients to support > various specific use cases or more generalized ones. I may end up > contributing at some point myself if I manage to find some extra time. > I think that it's premature to claim that Wave "isn't going anywhere" > or is in danger of being a "project by programmers for programmers." > It has barely started to solidify as a coherent project. I think we > should give it some time.:) > > Nathan > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Paul Thomas <dt01pqt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > It is different from a forum, however a forum like interface was exactly > how I would have got people interested. Instead of going about the wave way > of doing thing an obscurities like blips, users didn't necessarily had to > know any of that. You introduce it slowly, using what user are used to. The > technology behind it is mostly irrelevant to them. > > > > > > IMO the biggest thing holding WAIB back, and I'm sorry to be a pain for > mentioning this again, is lack of Access Control flexibility. > > > > > > The current way of doing thing where everybody can edit everything, just > isn't the expected default (go ask everyday jobs-bodies), and besides there > are so many variations need if you hope to meet real use cases. > > > > > > The point I made some moths ago, if you are not careful WAIB is in > danger of being a project by programmers for programmers. Just an obscure > fascination. This was something said to me by a good friend, and > non-programmer, and some one with a far bit of experience with NGOs. She is > absolutely right at this point in time. > > > > > > People collaborate up to a point, however there is a big stipulation. If > you have spent hours on something, the last thing you want is people just > coming changing everything, especially the main item. There is a saying "a > camel is a horse designed by a committee". > > > > There is plenty of scope for collaboration and contribution, but you > really need all the variations, from strictly defined roles, to free > storming. > > > > > > At the moment WAIB as it stand suits people who are already used to > working in the free storming mentality, and therefore tend to know each > other. > > > > Not having the AC scope ironically makes WAIB quite limited, from user > perspective :( > > > > We all know what potential wave technology has, even going beyond the > wave document object. But I don't think interested will be stoked, until it > is adaptable to fit any use case. > > > > IMO Ham radio is less obscure. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Doug <douglas.lin...@gmail.com> > > To: wave-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2012, 23:57 > > Subject: Re: Wave: Distributed forum? > > > > websockets: doesn't run in a standard servlet container. > > > > gwt: too complex, poorly thought out (no mocks) barrier to entry working > on > > the code base is huge. > > > > gwt in itself is great, but I'm sure you saw the Google Wave > retrospective > > 'don't put your junior engineers in charge on the ui' blog post too. > > > > ~ > > Doug > > On Jan 5, 2012 11:31 PM, "Thomas Wrobel" <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Someone is working on a wave client protocol now - but getting to > >> grips with the wave code base is quite tricky so I wouldn't get your > >> hopes up for anything soon. The idea is to separate the things being > >> communicated from the method used to send them. > >> I have a stake/bias in this as I have my own special use case for > >> wave (arwave.org) that I want to work on. > >> > >> Not sure what exactly is daft about gwt/websocket connection though. > >> For web interfaces it makes sense to me. *shrugs*. But, yes, it would > >> be great to be able to code in anything you want, for anything you > >> want and still connect to any normal wiab server. > >> > >> > >> On 5 January 2012 16:18, Doug <douglas.lin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Oh, don't get me wrong, that would be awesome! > >> > > >> > If we had a solid wave server with a wave api you could build whatever > >> > front end you want (real time or not) on top of it. You could drop the > >> daft > >> > web socket connection and the GWT ui. That would be fantastic. > >> > > >> > Is that what's busy being built? > >> > > >> > Doesn't seem like it. > >> > > >> > ~ > >> > Doug. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Indeed wave allows you to *selectively* message anyone you want and > >> >> have either private or public conversations as you wish with any > >> >> combination of your contacts. > >> >> This is its power over forums. > >> >> You could somewhat have a forum like "skin" for the interface - but > >> >> you could equally have a email like one, or a twitter like one, or a > >> >> facebook style one. > >> >> From waves perspective these are all subsets of its functionality. > >> >> The tricky bit is making a interface that can do the most and preset > >> >> it in the most intuitive way. > >> >> > >> >> I'm not against dedicated wave clients for different purpose's (after > >> >> all, thats one advantage of a open federated protocol), but you need > >> >> at least one client that does it all as a reference for the rest. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ~~~~~~ > >> >> Reviews of anything, by anyone; > >> >> www.rateoholic.co.uk > >> >> Please try out my new site and give feedback :) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 5 January 2012 12:14, Davide Carnovale > >> >> <francesco.davide.carnov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Hi all, > >> >> > imho wave is much more than a forum with a nice wysiwyg editor. > >> >> > the real power and innovation behind wave is federation (that's why > >> XMPP > >> >> is > >> >> > for) and partly also OT. > >> >> > The thing is, if i have 3 wonderful forums i want to regularly > >> contribute > >> >> > to, i need 3 separate accounts on them. with wave (via federation) > i > >> just > >> >> > need one and i'll see and contribute to all 3 of them, seamlessly. > >> >> > i can also have automated tasks via robots and third party > application > >> >> > (mobile phone for instance) via the c/s protocol, and individual > waves > >> >> can > >> >> > be integrated into regular web pages with custom components for > each > >> user > >> >> > (i'm not 100% sure on this actually) > >> >> > > >> >> > for what i understand from your mail, all you want is to "extract" > the > >> >> nice > >> >> > wysiwyg wave editor and add it to phpbb (for instance, or any other > >> >> forum) > >> >> > > >> >> > for me it's a definitely no go because it trashes all the wave > idea. > >> >> > also, not to put all this burden on you, but i think your vision > >> (shared > >> >> by > >> >> > many people) is the main reason why wave failed in first place. > >> (please > >> >> > don't take this as an aggression) > >> >> > just my 2 cents =) > >> >> > > >> >> > D > >> >> > > >> >> > Il giorno 05 gennaio 2012 11:39, Max pane <your...@gmail.com> ha > >> >> scritto: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> i support this > >> >> >> > >> >> >> regards, > >> >> >> jack john > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Doug <douglas.lin...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Idly I was thinking today about things I liked about wave and > >> things I > >> >> >> > didn't and it struck me all the things I used wave for were the > >> same > >> >> >> thing > >> >> >> > I used a forum for: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > You have multiple threaded conversions between groups of people, > >> some > >> >> of > >> >> >> > which take place in public, some in small private groups. You > can > >> send > >> >> >> > direct messages between individual users. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The only real novel aspect of it was: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > - Rich document model for posts > >> >> >> > - You have real time collaborative document editing > >> >> >> > - You can share waves across multiple servers > >> >> >> > - User submissions are verified using strong auth to prevent > >> spoofing > >> >> >> > - 'Bot users > >> >> >> > - Gadgets > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Of these features, I feel no one ever did anything particularly > >> >> >> interesting > >> >> >> > with bots, gadgets or the real time editing... but the idea of a > >> >> pretty > >> >> >> > forum (rich editor~) you can participate in with anyone... that > >> still > >> >> >> seems > >> >> >> > really cool to me. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > ...but, wiab isn't really thrilling anyone much at the moment. > That > >> >> >> hacker > >> >> >> > news article got a few comments, but yeah... pretty much back to > >> >> >> > silence-as-usual since then. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I appreciate that the code in wiab is inherited from google > wave, > >> but > >> >> >> > it's ridiculously over complicated. Under current is a hack to > over > >> >> come > >> >> >> > the crazy-ness of the UI. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Is anyone interested in going back to basics and rebuilding the > >> wiab > >> >> core > >> >> >> > from scratch? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > With the objectives of: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > - A clean top quality, beautiful forum (aka. phpBB) with full > forum > >> >> >> > functionality in java using MVC principles. > >> >> >> > - That permits waves (ie. threads) to be shared between server > >> >> instances. > >> >> >> > - With: > >> >> >> > -- Strong crypto to authenticate users and user actions. > >> >> >> > -- The full wave document model for each thread. > >> >> >> > -- A minimalist javascript frontend for rich editing and > otherwise > >> >> server > >> >> >> > side templates. > >> >> >> > - Deployable on any compliant serlvet container > >> >> >> > - Simple public interfaces for implementing persistence, > >> attachments, > >> >> >> > authentication, themes via plugins. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > And completely dropping: > >> >> >> > - The wave api > >> >> >> > - Robots > >> >> >> > - Gadgets > >> >> >> > - Concurrent editing > >> >> >> > - An embedded hacked up version of jetty to run on > >> >> >> > - The need for an XMPP server (as I understand it XMPP isn't > >> actually > >> >> >> > _used_ for anything) > >> >> >> > - The overweight javascript front end. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > This would massively cleanup the code base, and I'm sure that > there > >> >> are > >> >> >> > parts of the wiab code base that could be pulled over to get > this > >> >> >> working. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > ... the question I guess is, do people feel that would be too > much > >> of > >> >> a > >> >> >> > sacrifice to the wave spirit? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Honestly I think the wiab code base is a lost cause at this > point. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > ~ > >> >> >> > Doug. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
