On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Ted Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:56 +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> Why cant we do both and have the best of both worlds? I dont think >> there's anyone that's said, 'hey lets NOT do a desktop client', just >> that with limited resources the core project team wants to focus first >> on a GLAMP solution. What's to stop you adding a blazingly fast >> native client in parallel? > > We can do that. It would be definitely sub-optimal, because we'd > essentially have a fork (two implementations of the core, at least). We > would need a strictly and consensually defined protocol for core/UI > communication. > > The contention here isn't the UI. Everyone agrees that a web UI would be > nice, as would a desktop-based UI. People disagree on the implementation > of the core as a GLAMP application versus a conventional daemon. But if > we accept the duplicated effort, there's no reason not to have both. >
I would reiterate here that the underlying protocols (platform, language, etc agnostic) would be the important piece of any attempts at a federated network. Get those right and the discussion of language and platform becomes moot. Get a reference implementation (or two) in the wild and hope to build adoption from there. -- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/
