Hi, I suggest having a look at this conversation:
https://wave.google.com/wave/waveref/googlewave.com/w+x9ezNAnGC Especially at the end of the discussion, Joseph and I considered to do more or less what you mentioned here: Provide a general purpose OT and federation protocol for all kind of data. This protocol could be used to implement a google wave clone, you could use it for shared editing of your music library and play lists. Joseph even suggested to build a FUSE client, i.e. to build an OT-based file system that can be mounted into the normal file system. Or you could build a distributed and open facebook clone. There are many cool things that could be built on top of a general purpose federation with OT integration. I started implementing some of the ideas mentioned in this wave discussion: http://code.google.com/p/lightwave/ The aim of this project is to come up with an easy to install/easy to maintain wave server featuring OT and federation. For the sake of simplicity all communication is performed via HTTP/HTTPS. No need to deal with XMPP, protobuf, base64 encoding and so on. Any input is highly welcome. Greetings Torben 2010/8/10 Ian Roughley <[email protected]> > 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > -- --------------------------- Prof. Torben Weis Universitaet Duisburg-Essen [email protected] -- 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.
