On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Brett Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan, > > The basis of this is already in the published FedOne source. You could > check what they have done instead of trying to figure out what they > should have done. >
If there is a difference between the FedOne source and the whitepaper, it's a better assumption that the source is incorrect and non-compliant. I would like to note that some of decisions in the FedOne source are clearly design optimisations for the Wave case rather than the more general algorithm described in the whitepaper. The algorithm can deal with arbitrary XML documents - though it can't guarantee that the results are valid XML unless the client makes special efforts to compose things like startElement/endElement into atomic transforms. The FedOne source cannot, because they went for a much more efficient (if somewhat non-intuitive) quasi-XML design in their Wave documents, which allows them to guarantee validity and organised their source around that (doing things like storing binary transforms). One can easily imagine a git-based implementation where the server maintains a branch for every client and handles the transforms by merging between branches. -- 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.
