Until now we were committed to supporting WFP as a standard protocol. Given that the future is now undecided, we'll need to re-evaluate the options. I am open to discussing options with other providers (wave or not), because I do believe this is a good thing for the collaboration space in general.
/Ian On 08/06/2010 01:18 AM, Christopher Harvey 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 would totally concur with this suggestion. Whilst OT (and real-time > collaborative editing) is sexy, at this stage of the game it overly > complicates a federation protocol. > > Have you/Novell discussed/outlined/thought-more-about anything in more > detail along these lines? > > Chris > -- > iotawave.org <http://iotawave.org> > Singapore > > -- > 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. -- 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.
