I've yet to see a CVS that pushes the updates out to users, especially down a graphed network of servers, the premises is always that you go and pull what you want - I see this as the main difference.
Now if you had said FeedSync I would have agreed. It also has the benefit of working on intermittent and high-latency connections. Ian Roughley Novell Pulse Architect On 08/06/2010 02:44 AM, Patrick Nagel wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On 2010-08-06 03:11 UTC Ian Roughley wrote: > [...] >> One thing that no one has addressed on this list is that by continuing WFP >> you also need to continue OT and the JS editor. If you don't have a >> strong fully-featured non-buggy editor that people/companies can use >> without developing themselves, OT won't be continued or used. Without OT, >> the WFP protocol breaks down. It's all a mini-ecosystem. >> >> I wonder whether a slightly different protocol that would allow for the >> federation of existing non-real-time content as well as real-time content >> would be received better by the community. One that avoided the need for >> significant code changes, and one that would allow services to federate >> any type of content. > > I think that does actually exist already, in many different implementations: > all modern VCS (git, mercurial, ...). > > Patrick. > -- 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.
