Appreciate the insight, Ian. For another project taking the tactic you have about skipping client protocol is viable. Alas, for the one I had in mind it just means we're gonna have to push off Wave integration until a proper client protocol is defined. I really can't imagine what they were thinking making the current complex monster when a functionally complete one could have been simply made in the first place. It has clearly added to the confusion (and thus, extremely limited adoption) of wave.
-- Ben On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Ian Roughley <[email protected]> wrote: > No pulse is not open source, and there are no plans to expose our C/S > protocol (APIs but not C/S). > > From what I know, what you're looking for doesn't currently exist. So the > options seem to be to do > what we're doing, with the server being FedOne; or start a C/S protocol :-) > > Good Luck! > > /Ian > > proteus guy wrote: > > 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] > > <mailto:[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] <mailto: > [email protected]>. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > > > > <mailto:wave-protocol%[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] > > <mailto:[email protected]>. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > > > > <mailto:wave-protocol%[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]<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.
