Upayavira, Thanks for the information. It is my understanding (which may need clarification) that the Wave in a Box implementation includes most of the key components of that Wave 1.0 was at Google (I know that it never quite reached that official status, but conceptually that was the idea). Missing are things such as the Google-specific user management, some of the UI paradigms, and so on, but the WiaB demo client that Yuri and others assembled seems like the baseline for Wave, now. I will double-check on the Google Group, I am a member of it, for signs of protocol movement, but I suspect that there's none. Google, of course, has moved on and incorporated some Wave principles into components such as the Google Drive Realtime API - which appeared in the session talk at Google I/O to have essentially Wave-like message conflict resolution.
With this in mind, what exactly is "the remit" for Apache in Wave development? I want to make sure that those who are rekindling their interest in moving Wave forward as an open source are properly aligned with Apache, but if there's a limited remit that does not cover protocol development, then we need to understand exactly how best to incorporate Apache into that process of Wave moving forward. Thomas, Good to hear from you. I am with you on both fronts - mobile and protocol development. I see a number of issues with Wave architecture as it exists today that need addressing along the lines of what you have raised: - The Java-based code is way too heavy for effective deployment in mobile apps, and encumbers performance in browser apps. There are many Web-oriented options that have progressed since the Wave code base was first turned over to Apache. - At the ISO layer model, it's not clear how best to position Wave as a protocol. It seems that in part Wave's mission may be to provide presentation layer-style services for other application later protocols like POP/IMAP, IRC and XMPP, but to move towards a native stack that parallels those protocols for optimal performance. Thinking of issues like firewall configurations, etc., this parallelism may have to exist for a while on wide-area networks. On local networks or tunneled networks, perhaps less so. - The original Wave assumes real-time interchange and continuous communication quality as a baseline. That's not the case in mobile communications often, especially in developing nations. - It is now a mobile-first world - there are more people with mobile Web access than non-mobile access. Wave needs to be updated to reflect this reality and to be able to be deployed easily as a mobile-only option, perhaps as a default. - If we go to a mobile-first paradigm, then the issue of what a client-server stack capable of running on a typical mobile device becomes worth considering, and perhaps is necessary as a default component. In a very broad sense, this is not so different from email Web clients which enable offline use via HTML 5 services, perhaps. These client-server stacks on mobile devices might find themselves often bypassing the Internet or a local IP network for data exchange with other Wave users, and then connecting to local networks and the greater federated world of Wave servers on the Web to synchronize and to participate in live interchanges. Would love to have you and others on board wrestling through these items. I will poke about a bit on the Google Groups platform to see what's happening there, we also have waves/topics set up on Rizzoma and Kune.cc as well as wavewatchers.org for those interested, but I want to make sure that this particular thread stays vital to develop a broader consensus on how to proceed within the Apache community. All the best, John Blossom email: [email protected] phone: 203.293.8511 google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> wrote: > Theres also the need for a Wave client/server protocol standard (akin to > what POP3 or IMAP is for email), that seems to be in a limbo for a very > long time. > As someone very eager to work on native mobile clients, this has been a > hold up. No one can make mobile clients at the moment without also running > their own server. > > -Thomas Wrobel > (Interested 3rd party..) > > ~~~ > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > > > On 25 May 2013 15:05, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > John, > > > > Others may clarify more, but it was my understanding that the wave > > protocol was not to come over to Apache - Apache only received a partial > > implementation, Wave in a Box. > > > > So you'd certainly be right that the protocol itself hasn't moved at > > Apache - that hasn't been the remit here. I believe they have a google > > group for discussing the protocol itself, but not sure how active that > > list is. > > > > The Apache Wave project is focused around producing an implementation of > > the protocol. > > > > HTH! Upayavira > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2013, at 12:31 PM, John Blossom wrote: > > > Christian, > > > > > > Thanks for the information. I was addressing Yuri directly as a > starting > > > point, since I am unfamiliar with anyone else who has been active on > the > > > Wave incubator code. I do understand the general structure of Apache. > > > What > > > I am trying to understand more clearly is whether the Apache > organization > > > as a whole governs the Wave incubator project or whether there is a > > > subset > > > of contributors who govern it. Trademark issues are certainly > understood. > > > > > > I am glad to contribute requirements specifications and review, though > my > > > coding days are pretty well past. My main concern is that the Wave > > > specification has not progressed under Apache and no longer reflects > the > > > goals that Wave should be able to undertake in a mobile-first Web. I > > > would > > > like to encourage developers to step forward to work towards that goal. > > > To > > > that extend, the "third party" is simply other developers and > enthusiasts > > > who need to communicate with Apache more actively to help determine how > > > best to move forward with Wave. I am taking that step on a > non-commercial > > > basis, in the hopes that we can develop a code base that will result in > > > robust, interconnected commercial and non-commercial products and > > > services. > > > Presumed goodwill should be the order of the day for everyone in this > > > process. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > John Blossom > > > > > > email: [email protected] > > > phone: 203.293.8511 > > > google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Hello John, > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM, John Blossom <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I am a member of WaveWatchers, a group of enthusiasts who remain > > devoted > > > > to > > > > > the concept of Wave and its future. I am trying to get a hand as to > > the > > > > > coordination of Apache Wave today. Yuri Zelikov, I know that you > > remain > > > > > active in the coding of projects in the Incubator community, and > that > > > > > you've done a lot through the years to keep Wave-in-a-Box on the > map. > > > > But I > > > > > am not sure of the structure of how your efforts fit into the > bigger > > > > > picture. > > > > > > > > First off, the Apache Software Foundation is a group of volunteers > > > > doing projects together. > > > > At Apache Wave, there are more people to be considered active and so > > > > it would be wrong > > > > to just only ask Yuri. > > > > > > > > For more information on the ASF, please read: > > > > > > > > * www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html > > > > > > > > Please also note that the Incubator is a kind of meta project for > > > > hosting other projects > > > > which want to come to the ASF. > > > > > > > > That said it would be good if you could explain what you mean with > > > > "bigger picture". > > > > > > > > > I'd be grateful for an update from any and all concerned. I and > > others > > > > are > > > > > interested in re-architecting Wave for more full-blown > > implementation and > > > > > propagation. > > > > > > > > Surely, you and your fellows are invited to join the project on the > > > > dev list and discuss > > > > changes to the Apache Wave protocol. Please note, so far I see the > > > > term "Apache Wave" > > > > is a trademark of the Apache Software Foundation. Developing another > > > > "Wave" protocol > > > > outside of this project might make lead to trademark confusion and > > > > need to be discussed > > > > more in detail. > > > > > > > > While it is surely to our all benefit to join forces, it needs to be > > > > clear that this project > > > > is not necessary required to implement the specifications of a third > > > > party. This being > > > > said, it is better to discuss your proposed changes here, on the > > > > developer mailing list. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > > > John Blossom > > > > > > > > > > email: [email protected] > > > > > phone: 203.293.8511 > > > > > google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.grobmeier.de > > > > https://www.timeandbill.de > > > > > > >
