It looks like some people misunderstood the point… On Oct 1, 6:35 am, James Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > why not just keep using XMMP?
Wave is *not* using XMPP right now for the C/S protocol. Only for federation. The point of this discussion is to decide upon a C/S protocol that doesn’t suck; I am personally lobbying for XMPP to be said protocol. On Oct 1, 6:42 am, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/1/09 2:43 AM, elliottcable wrote: > > I personally am interested in seeing XMPP become not only the > > foundation of > > the federation protocol, but of the C/S protocol as well. When I first > > heard > > about Wave, before getting into the Sandbox, I was very excited; it > > sounded > > like a great idea, based on great tools (XMPP!). Unfortunately, I was > > extremely disappointed to find that XMPP really has nothing whatsoever > > to do > > with Wave, and I’d like to see that remedied. > > I'd be happy to help with an XMPP binding. An XMPP ‘binding’? No, we don’t want to bind the existing RPC/protobuf psuedo–protocol to XMPP, we want to replace it. Google has, multiple times and places, said it’s very open to yanking out that hacky crap and replacing it with a protocol that the community can agree on. So, all that’s left is for us to agree on one, and tell google ‘implement this.’ On Oct 1, 6:42 am, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/1/09 2:43 AM, elliottcable wrote: > > Really, though, any sensible protocol that we can agree on would be > > great. > > Another option is possibly something involving JSON; that’d make > > JavaScript > > heavy–clients ridiculously easy to write for the web. > > JSON is not extensible. IMHO that's going to make it difficult to build > anything interesting. I disagree about JSON not being extensible, but it’s not really my ‘favourite horse’ for this race, anyway. On Oct 1, 9:41 am, danbirlem <[email protected]> wrote: > XMPP seems like it should have been adopted and pushed for, cradle to > grave when the words 'real time collaboration' were mentioned. > However, I would not put it past that this protocol will rival XMPP in > terms of flexibility. > > Just my two cents... What do you mean by ‘this protocol’? The RPC/protobufs C/S protocol currently in use? To even call that a protocol is kind of laughable. Read above, it’s largely irrelevant as long as ‘we the people’ can agree on a real protocol in a timely manner, so Google doesn’t change their mind about being willing to use whatever we agree on. On Oct 1, 10:27 am, Peter Ferne <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 Oct 2009, at 09:43, elliottcable wrote: > > > I personally am interested in seeing XMPP become not only the > > foundation of the federation protocol, but of the C/S protocol as > > well. > > Absolutely. It looks as if ProcessOne have already done some work > towards this.http://tr.im/p1waveIs anybody from there on this list? > It would be great if they were happy to share that work publicly. > -- > petef Hey, that looks pretty relevant. Maybe I’ll try to email some of their guys with a Google Groups link to this thread later today. (Also, damn you, Google Groups, for automatically wrapping my text! I’m so used to hard–wrapping everything I type at 78 characters… sorry, to everybody else, for producing an original message unreadable on Google Groups >_<) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
