Ive noticed a few standalone wave apps; http://www.getwaveboard.com/ and http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/marketplace/index.cfm?event=marketplace.offering&offeringid=16581&marketplaceid=1
I wonder how they are communicating with Googles severs. Are they emulating googles protobuffers or have they found a different method? 2009/10/24 ThomasWrobel <[email protected]>: > > It is certainly better discussing on Wave. > That said, not much has happened in the c/s Wave recently. > > Ive copied the posts below since Oct6. Sorry for the bad layout, but I > hope it helps get an idea whats going on. > > Rémy Sanchez: > I also think that XMPP is better... Even though that JSON would be > easier to handle for JS (and then we could do a HTTP binding of the > protocol and have easily pure JS clients running in the browser, which > by the way would be atrociously slow and heavy), > > Burak Yiğit KAYA: > No it won't =) I will also allow you to write many JS based clients on > various platforms like AIR. > XMPP is widely tested and experienced. And you can handle XML from > most of languages. And there is already a lot that have been done with > XMPP (including re-usable libraries). And XMPP was made to be > extensible. That makes a lot of arguments :) > > William Edney: > Actually, XML is pretty easily handled inside of a browser - I've done > a *lot* of it, including writing a lot of XMPP handling inside of a > browser. It's really not that bad (and there are JS libraries to > handle it). I wouldn't want to see the C/S protocol 'corrupted' for > everyone else just because JSON is easy to handle in the browser. Do > the protocol right... us browser guys will adjust :-). > > Rémy Sanchez: > Hell yes, and moreover what we want is not at all a web client... > > Oct 11 > [email protected]: > I dare you to find a reasonably common language which does not have a > json handling lib. > > Rémy Sanchez: > Ada has none :) > > [email protected]: > well, shucks, you got me, otoh I contend that if someone actually > feels up to writing a wave server or client in ada then this little > bit of work : http://json.org/ won't be much of an issue, especially > in ada. > > Oct 6 > William Edney: > Well, what some us want is a *different* web client - but that's > ok :-) > > Angus Turner: > yes we want a different web client as well, i think people would > prefer a client that doesn't take up 256mb of ram > > Oct 6; > Rémy Sanchez: > however, I think that doing a thiner web client will be difficult.. > After all, Google's got good engineers I think... I hardly belive that > they made a slow and heavy interface on purpose. > > Elliott Cable: > I do believe they did. They consider that an okay thing, because they > think of it as a web application, and that changes how engineers like > us think. Somebody setting out to right a light, less–featured client, > that actually runs worth crap, could certainly do so. > > ✿Melissa✿ Elliott: > Off-topic: It seems all the deleted blips don't show up as being > deleted in the playback. Is this coming Real Soon Now or is the > playback just bugged? > > Oct 7 > Angus Turner: > i think lars mentioned that when i was speaking to him.... > but he didn't say when it would be implemented > > Oct 8 > Elliott Cable: > Lars was talking about them showing up when you visited first after > they were deleted, not during Playback. > > Melissa, sounds like a bug to me. They should already be showing up in > Playback, and have been for me (at least, when I last got Playback to > actually work on a wave, which was something like a month ago, I think > d-:) > > Oct 15 > Darkflame: > Speaking personaly, I dont have a preferance for XMPP or JSON...I > think I could adapt well enough to either. As long as theres a nicely > documented standard, that hopefully all wave severs will support, I'm > happy. > > > Is it time to have a vote box at the top of this thread or too soon? > > [email protected]: > well, some of the other threads have moved on and deal exclusively > with how to implement the protocol over XMPP, no need to vote ;) > > Oct 18 > Okdokie. So whats the plan...as a community we make a implementation > then nudge google and hope they take it onboard? > > [email protected]: > I think that the most efficient way would simply to do that, pour our > efforts into alternative implemenations and try to make them > compatible with the apis that google offers, this way we can leverage > the gadgets / robots / apps that we build on this preview, while also > being able to extend the reach and flexibility of the 'wave platform'. > > David Hubbard: > It's also probably a good idea to put some effort into extending > fedOne, as google is already committed to maintaining it -- so they > are predisposed to look favorably on patches to it. > > Darkflame: > So, as person working in a group that needs c/s for our project, whats > the best course of action for us? > We are very keen to get started asap, but it seems very hard to do > much without it. What can we do to assist or encourage the adoption of > a standard c/s protocol? > > Oct 23 > [email protected]: > > The best is probably to provide a library to the group that basically > implements your version of the C/S Protocol and be ready for it to be > ripped apart and changed. So your best bet is to buidl an abstraction > layer on top of that library for your client that can easily be > adapted to the evolving protocol. And of course keep a close eye on > these discussions. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
