Hi Zakwan, You are correct: the Wave Federation Protocol is a specification, which everyone is encouraged to continue to use, regardless of the fate of Google Wave as a standalone product. We released the open source FedOne wave server to illustrate the protocol, but it is just one implementation, as you point out. I don't see any problems with your continued use of the Wave Federation Protocol, if it satisfies your needs.
I sent a related reply to another thread about this: http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol/msg/1f7a78886fc4e08b Soren On Sep 8, 3:54 am, Zakwan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > It seems that we are confused! We are working on a project related to > larg-scale distribued data management approach. We have already used > the Google Wave Federation Protocol as an underlaying protocol for > federation among servers which stores different types of data. > > The main critique for our implementation was that we rely on GW which > is no longer supported by Google! As to our undersanding, the GWFP is > a specification and FedOne is one implementation, right? The question > now, does it make sense to continue working on the project even with > the use of FedOne since we are developing a prototype and we use a > protocol which will still exist even after the GW product death? > > Is there any problem with our approach if we use a ready protocol > instead of inventing a new one? > > Thank you very much for helping us to differentiate between stopping > support of GW product and the GWFP itself. > > Zakwan -- 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.
