I think this transition would be easier if there was a defined translation to/from the old/new ids. Then WiaB could store/use new ids, but be able to support APIs that need to use the old ids.
-Tad On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Alex North <[email protected]> wrote: > Wave identifiers as currently implemented (Wave[let]Id.java) do not conform > to the draft specification we published at > http://wave-protocol.googlecode.com/hg/spec/waveid/waveidspec.html. That > spec limits code points valid inside an identifier with an explicit goal of > supporting natural URI construction and wave references/links. > > The existing code is far too relaxed in allowing just about any character > in an id, requiring lots of escaping wherever they are used and generally > causing pain. The existing escaping scheme (WaveId.serialize()) is also a > bit simplistic and doesn't help mattters (the results are still not > URL-safe). > > We lagged in fixing this because the prospect of migrating existing Google > Wave data was too daunting. Apache Wave is the perfect opportunity to fix > some fundamental flaws here, before too much data is generated (yay for no > persistence yet). > > I propose to change wave ids to implement the draft spec we published and > clean out lots of serialization cruft. The biggest potential roadblock to > this is that *if* a federated service generates ids that are incompatible > with the spec, those ids will not be allowed by WIAB. Since there are no > WIAB services that can persist data yet, I don't expect this to be many, but > I'm aware some services may be creating and persisting data without using > WIAB code. > > The change will also change things where ids are transported or persisted. > Some examples: > - user-data wavelet > - wave links > - URL bar history hash > - c/s protocol > - robot protocol > > The robot protocol is an interesting case, because changing the id > serialisation to be a URI is backwards-incompatible. I hope we can move the > robot client library forward to use the new form, but if developers desire > it we may need to keep supporting the old serialisation just for that > protocol for a while. > > Comments? Objections? > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
