I think is not possible to run federation without OT
But.... what is the problem with OT? If function is well-defined is not complicate to implement.... What is really need is clear specs all people can follow, that's all Jesus Salas wave-vs.net On 6 ago, 18:05, antwatkins <[email protected]> wrote: > So a couple of my thoughts on this thread. Apache Foundation is great > provided Google wants to release control of code. If they do not, I > like the idea of the consortium because it is a formal construct that > can facilitate the pooling of resources, a consensus of > recommendations, and can support sub groups that take on different > aspects of the effort. Also, a consortium promotes more participation > outside of developers and can be focused more on common protocols > (whether it's for federation, OT, etc). As Ian from Novell mentioned > they were creating a collaboration platform before Wave and they are > interested in federation (but not necessarily just focusing on the > Wave code base). A consortium may be a more natural fit for external > organizations in this mold. > > I'm not sure what federation looks like without OT. I want to hear > more on this. When I think of OT, I think less real-time and more the > ability to guarantee convergence between multiple participants on a > shared state via operations. As Patrick Nagel pointed out, sending > around substantive copies of documents seems close to a source control > system. So I am very interested in understanding how a non-OT > collaborative federation would work. -- 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.
