Ian,
Yes we need a client/OT implementation initially and our next stage is
to expose some applications at the server level as waves. We know the C/S
protocol is going to be redone but were hoping for a quick win to integrate
an existing app front end with wave but doesn't look like that's going to be
an option right now.
I like your idea of using a federated wave server as a middle-ware of
sorts but it's not appropriate for our initial requirements. I don't suppose
Pulse is Open Source? :-)
-- Ben
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Ian Roughley <[email protected]> wrote:
> We have our own client (and server for that matter) at Novell with Pulse.
>
> The question you ask is a little tricky as it's unclear whether you're
> integrating at the
> server/federation level or the client/OT level (this is what I suspect you
> want). Having waves in
> the client would be nice, but I'd assume that at some point you'd want to
> keep some of this
> information in your application and always routing waves through the client
> seems very inefficient.
>
> If it is the later, I think you're out of luck for some time (for C/S
> protocol). What we found was
> that the C/S protocol (even though it would be nice to have to slap a new
> face on an existing
> server) was not particularly important. Instead we have a federatable
> server that our client talks
> to, and to provide compatibility with wave we took the OT code (from
> FedOne) and compiled it using
> GWT into a JS library - if you take this route, the JS will be language
> agnostic. The communication
> between our client and server is then our choice, and can be swapped around
> if necessary.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Ian
>
> proteusguy wrote:
> > We're looking to integration Google Wave with an existing
> > application (web services with python/javascript) and need an
> > implementation of the client protocol in either (preferably) javscript
> > or python. The existing GWT-based one is simply not going to work for
> > us and we don't want to have to deal with Java. I understand that the
> > ultimately client protocol is a "work-in-progress" to put it politely
> > but we just want to have a clean client access to the current wave
> > server to get this initial product integration done. Appreciate any
> > pointers/advice.
> >
> > -- Ben Scherrey
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]>
> .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
>
>
>
--
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.
