I must confess, without OT though, a lot of the cool use's for WFP go out the window. (Especially my own project, which was to use WFP as a means to collaboratively edit and create 3d positioned content for augmented reality use) Seems kinda defeatist to me to lose it this soon.
In either case's, shall everyone involved/interested in running Wave servers meet here; https://wave.google.com/wave/#restored:wave:googlewave.com/w+Q_-a_E3kB (at least untill a new place can be found?) On Aug 6, 7:18 am, Christopher Harvey <[email protected]> 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 > 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.
