Re: [Google Wave APIs] ... and Google gets to keep all the data?
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au wrote: If you never add anyone on Google's servers to your wave, the wave's data will never get to their server (e.g. if you are running a private one and block federation.) I might be wrong, however I read the concern as why do I have to store my data on Google's servers? as opposed to how can I be sure my data will remain private? That's what I answered too. Privacy is another (although highly related) matter. TX -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Wave API group. To post to this group, send email to google-wave-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=en.
Re: [Google Wave APIs] Re: Hosting a bot on my own server
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Venkat Polisetti venkat.polise...@gmail.com wrote: Currently Google does not support hosting Robots on servers other than the App Engine. In the future it will, I hope. Set up an XMPP server somewhere for your domain, set up a Wave server attached to that. Bots can then connect via that Wave server's client-server protocol. pros: - Uses a protocol designed for this sort of thing -- XMPP -- not HTTP, which was never meant to be used as a two-way push protocol. - Works through the already documented federation protocol. - Puts control of the bot protocol back in the hands of the person setting up this server. I haven't looked at how FedOne does it yet though. - Potentially allows you to write bots which run inside the component itself, saving the need for any client-server protocol whatsoever. cons: - Main server doesn't seem to support federation yet -- but it *will*. (sandbox does though, right?) - Federation might not support things like filtering which events to receive since it isn't truly designed for bots. Someone who is online (and bots always are) will always receive all updates. - There aren't many Wave servers to choose from (I could only name FedOne myself before doing a Google search to find a couple of others.) Personally I think that this kind of setup makes a lot of sense for bots though. If you made the client-server protocol based on XMPP as well then there would be a large number of different programming languages it would be possible to program in. TX -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Wave API group. To post to this group, send email to google-wave-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=en.
[Google Wave APIs] Re: Less frequent updating
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Linc ala...@online.de wrote: Why not implement a counter or sth. so that you only react on everey 3rd DOCUMENT_CHANGED. Or some kind of capability saying that it only wants updates once every 3 seconds, and however many changes occur within those 3 seconds does not matter. I think that would be clearer, and you'd get a better idea of how many requests the app will be hit with (once per 3 seconds per subscribed wave?) TX --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Wave API group. To post to this group, send email to google-wave-api@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Google Wave APIs] Re: In What Would You Like to Code Robots?
I would use Ruby, though I know Google hate it. PHP... eww. PHP is fine for web stuff but for bots it seems wrong. Yes, I know that currently, Wave robots run as webapps. That also seems wrong. Why are they not using XMPP so that things can be done over a protocol designed for real-time? :-| TX --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Wave API group. To post to this group, send email to google-wave-api@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Google Wave APIs] Re: Why is the googlewave.com username the same as the google account (gmail) username
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Alan Green ☄ alangr...@google.com wrote: Hi Betty, This was a product decision that we discussed for quite some time, and did not make lightly. In the end, we thought there was more benefit for users in being able to access all Google products with one password and one public identity. And then the flipped question comes into play: why did the domain change? Now I have two public identities for one account, one at gmail.com and one at wavesandbox.com. In my opinion, if two accounts are the same then they should share the domain. TX --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Wave API group. To post to this group, send email to google-wave-api@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Google Wave APIs] Re: Why is the googlewave.com username the same as the google account (gmail) username
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.auwrote: Sure you didn't mean gmail.com and googlewave.com? The accounts on wavesandbox.com are not the same. Honest typo. I was obviously thinking about the sandbox too much, but I meant googlewave.com. I was wondering why we need two different domains for the same user. TX --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Wave API group. To post to this group, send email to google-wave-api@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Google Wave APIs] Re: Wave Identity
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Wayne shalo...@gmail.com wrote: Why not just support OpenID for accounts? That would provide the same benefit without building a new identity model. OpenID doesn't solve the problem, it just replaces one volatile identity system with another. When you move OpenID providers you will still have to move everything anyway. What would solve the problem more generically is robust migration from one ID to another or, put differently, ability to link IDs. The only major beef I have with the identity scheme is that: * My email is trej...@gmail.com * My Jabber ID is trej...@gmail.com * My Wave ID is trej...@googlewave.com -- WHY?! TX --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Wave API group. To post to this group, send email to google-wave-api@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-wave-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
