@Thomas, if you like Java and GWT, you are in luck because there is already a wave project using those (I refer, of course, to WIAB). I think having Joseph's project be done in pure JavaScript (and I do prefer writing my JS directly rather than using another language that “compiles” into JS) is a great idea because it gives those of us who do *not* prefer Java a bigger way to contribute to the wave ecosystem.
—Zachary Yaro On 1 December 2013 06:47, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > " I still want a web client, but it should be > written in pure javascript." > > GWT is already pure javascript. Writing "Directly" rather then via Java > doesn't give any real advantages in the end result - it just means you rule > out code sharing between client and server, an give yourself more work in > terms of writing around browser differences and having to optimize for the > web. There's things other then GWT that can do that, but raw javascript > just adds a tone more work to web client development. > > That said, I pretty much agree with everything else. > I would suggest, however, you need a few people ready to work on specific > goals for a specific amount. And what can be achieved is kept very clear. > Unfortunately no one will understand a kickstarter talking about OT. (or, > not enough to get the money I think). It all needs to be put into real > terms. > Multiple clients and use's with a single federate realtime protocol is > still a very big deal - no one has experience of that at the moment. The > hard part is getting across all the use-case's for it. Or, rather, the > specific ones you plan to make possible with the kickstarter. > > For my part, I am happy again to contribute (for free) whenever there is a > separation of the GWT client. Or even a clean client/server protocol to > build a new web client from stretch. > > Additionally, I have an Augmented Reality specific client application I > wrote, coded for Android phones. The idea was anyone could annotate > anything anywhere, and share it with whoever they want. The app is working > (mostly)...except it has no sever to connect too. Nothing at the moment > forfills the requirement. Once theres a client/server protocol to a wave > server I could very quickly put out this (imho) rather cool Android client > and I think it will attack a fair bit of attention. > > > > > > > > > ~~~ > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > > > On 1 December 2013 06:09, Angus Turner <ad...@theangus.org> wrote: > > > That's actually a really good idea. Id be happy to help out with > > organising. > > > > It sounds perfect for Wave, as there's tonnes of interest but not much > > programming ability. > > > > I would be interested in helping out with the actual programming but my > > expertise is in python not Java. > > > > On Sunday, 1 December 2013, Joseph Gentle wrote: > > > > > I still really want to make the wave platform we've been talking about > > > for awhile. I just don't have any time because I need to work to eat. > > > > > > So I've spent the last month thinking about running a kickstarter to > > > fund the work. Christian's email was really timely. > > > > > > > > > I want arbitrary JSON documents, or arbitrary embedding like we talked > > > about a few months ago. > > > > > > I want a protocol based on real P2P algorithms rather than the hacky > > > mess we have at the moment with trees of servers connecting via an > > > XMPP extension > > > > > > I want the same fundamental protocol to work server-server or > > > server-client. The OT stuff should work like git. > > > > > > No single person can maintain our 500k of legacy java code. I want to > > > write a better version with much cleaner separation of OT protocol and > > > application specifics. I still want a web client, but it should be > > > written in pure javascript. > > > > > > Messages should be cryptographically secure from snooping. > > > > > > > > > The way I see it, there's fundamentally three pieces that make up wave: > > > > > > 1. A set of OT primitives which allow peers to generate & interpret > > > operations > > > 2. A platform on top of (1) for exchanging operations between networked > > > peers > > > 3. An application on top of (2) which is trying to replace email > > > > > > These pieces should be separate from one another, and usable in other > > > contexts. > > > > > > I have a clear idea of how we can make (1) and (2) work. The OT part > > > we've talked about on the list and I've been slowly prototyping out > > > here: http://github.com/josephg/tp2stuff > > > > > > I have a bunch of applications I want to build on top of a platform > > > like this. For example, I want my text editor, compiler & unit tests > > > to all talk to one another so my text editor doesn't need > > > language-specific completion or syntax checking, and so my friends can > > > jump in and help me code. > > > > > > I don't know what the best way to build (3) is - but I'm more than > > > happy to build the platform that a new kind of email could be built on > > > top of. Maybe the current WIAB design is totally fine for that part - > > > though I want end-to-end encryption. > > > > > > I don't know when the right time to do this would be. I don't know if > > > I should work alone or if we should put a team together (Hi Ali!). If > > > I were to do this properly it would take about a month of prep to get > > > a kickstarter together, and if it is successful I'd want to quit my > > > job to do it. I think it'd take me about 6 months to a year of work to > > > get a stable, secure platform working (probably closer to a year), and > > > I'm also not allowed to stay in the US without an employer on my visa. > > > > > > The earliest this will probably happen is the end of the year. > > > > > > Kickstarter might also not be the right way to fund it. Cryptocat was > > > funded in 2012 mostly by Radio Free Asia's Open Tech Fund[1] to the > > > tune of ~$100k. A kickstarter would give us users (great) and > > > publicity, but the right private sponsor might also work. > > > > > > Maybe the most contentious part of all, I don't think I'd want to call > > > it wave. But it really would be the grandchild of what we've been > > > working on all this time. > > > > > > Thats my thoughts. If anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears. As I say, > > > I'm keen to build this, but I'm too old to live on ramen in a granny > > > shack. This thing we've been working toward has real value, and could > > > be put to great effect if we can actually make it good. > > > > > > -J > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://crypto.cat/documents/report-1213.pdf > > > https://www.opentechfund.org/ > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks > > Angus Turner > > e: h...@theangus.org > > m: 0424972516 > > >
