To the best of my knowledge, GetWaveBoard is simply embedding a web browser which runs Google Wave.
Torben 2009/10/24 Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- --------------------------- Prof. Torben Weis Universitaet Duisburg-Essen [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
