We have developed our own pure JS editor (Googles required GWT) that uses Googles OT code to drive some functions.
A co-worker today made a point which is also worth sharing (paraphrasing): requiring native OT integration is a high barrier for entry, but it does provide benefits, and OT is being used without Wave in various places. What if WFP was simply OT against any document? And it was up to the collaborating partners or market segment to create and conform to the document structure. The WFP could be used for more than hierarchical message structure, and used for many more markets to provide a real-time document transport. Ian Roughley Pulse Platform Architect On 08/07/2010 06:50 PM, Joel Dietz wrote: > Dear Ian, > > I understand your concern re: the JS Editor but not all of the > particulars. What is Novell using as a client? > > As far as I am aware there is nothing out there available but Google > promised to deliver something eventually. Also, AFAIK, there has been > no discussion of the integration of OT w/ other Google products, which > must use an lightweight but functional editor (Splash?) different than > the one currently in use at the Wave Preview. If we get some greater > part of that open sourced we can potentially iterate on it. > > Hard to say much more than that now, but I completely agree with you > that the JS Editor + WFP + OT all have to be in place for there to be > any real viability for Wave. Each needs to be open sourced and part of > an open, public decision making organization so that improvements can > be made. It seems that most of us are agreed on that. > > Regards, > > Joel > > On Aug 5, 11:11 pm, Ian Roughley <[email protected]> wrote: >> The short answer is yes, both from Novell Pulse and me personally. >> >> I believe that federation is one feature that was truly going to liberate >> the data, making it >> available cross-boundaries. It's the reason why email succeeded, and it >> would enabled true >> collaboration. >> >> My concern is that WFP is tightly coupled with OT, and OT is complex. It is >> no small feat (trust me >> I know from experience) in taking existing editors and infrastructure, and >> replacing it with >> OT-enabled infrastructure in an existing product. And translating between >> "normal" (text/xml/etc.) >> content and real-time OT content leads to problems. So convincing vendors >> to make this leap is >> going to be difficult. >> >> 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. >> >> Ian Roughley >> Pulse Platform Architect. >> >> On 08/05/2010 08:11 PM, James Purser wrote: >> >>> Hi Ian, >> >>> Thanks for the update from Novell. >> >>> Given that one of the features that Pulse was pimping was the ability >>> to conduct federated conversations, do you think Novell would be >>> interested in continuing to be involved in developing the Federation >>> protocol? >> >>> I know you probably can't answer right away, I'm just trying to get a >>> feel for who, corporately would be interested in furthering the wave >>> tech. >> >>> James > -- 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.
