I added some links to the documentation on the wave-protocol site to the Apache Wave Wiki - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WAVE/Wave+API+documentation So, I guess you can start from here.
@Michael, can you please give Fleeky Flanco the wating rights for Wave Wiki? On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Fleeky Flanco <[email protected]> wrote: > If someone can point me to the appropriate sources and approriate wiki i > wouldnt mind cut/paste formatting some data for this project. i dont have > much time to do any real development on this but i can do that. i really > want to see this project succeed. > > > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Max pane <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Let me know any on needs Virtual private server for testings > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Michael MacFadden < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Angus, > > > > > > I can take care of the notice. > > > > > > ~Michael > > > > > > On May 25, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Angus Turner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > As I said earlier, we're working towards moving all the documentation > > > onto > > > > the apache wave wiki, so it's all in one place, as it's currently > > > scattered > > > > over 3 or 4 sites. I suggest we put a notice up on the wave-protocol > > > > mailing list that disucssion is taking place on this mailing list. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Angus Turner > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Blossom <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Michael, > > > >> > > > >> I read this one first, but respond to it secondly. > > > >> > > > >> I would encourage you to proceed with the migration. If Google > support > > > is > > > >> deprecated, then we need to make that completely unambiguous for > > anyone > > > >> trying to learn about our efforts. I am excited that there is the > > > potential > > > >> to move forward with the protocol via the Apache community, which I > am > > > sure > > > >> will welcome additional contributors. > > > >> > > > >> All the best, > > > >> > > > >> John Blossom > > > >> > > > >> email: [email protected] > > > >> phone: 203.293.8511 > > > >> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Michael MacFadden < > > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> John, > > > >>> > > > >>> You concerns are valid. I worked directly with the Google team in > > > moving > > > >>> the project to Apache. In fact, I worked with the Google engineers > > to > > > >>> identify Apache as the target and I helped write the application to > > > >> become > > > >>> an incubator project. What I can tell you is that there is no one > at > > > >>> google shepherding the Wave Protocol. We had talked about moving > the > > > >> wave > > > >>> protocol itself over to Apache or possible over to IETF, or IEEE. > > > >>> Essentially, when Wave moved from Apache to Google, the only people > > > >>> working on the protocol are those working on Apache Wave. I still > > have > > > >>> administrator access to waveprotocol.org as I was a contributor > > there > > > as > > > >>> well. > > > >>> > > > >>> My impression is that if there is a group of people that would work > > on > > > >>> moving the protocol itself forward, that they would be suited to do > > > that > > > >>> in the Apache Wave community. The idea was always that AFTER a > > stable > > > >>> reference implementation was build and the protocol was shown to be > > > >>> robust, we would move it to an RFC, W3C, or IEEE standard. > However, > > > >>> working on them separately is just not a viable option with the > > current > > > >>> maturity of the community. > > > >>> > > > >>> We have had an open task to move all of the documentation on wave > > > >>> protocol.org over to Apache, we just haven't executed that yet. > My > > > >>> personal opinion is that wave is currently a small community. > Trying > > > to > > > >>> manage TWO communities right now is not feasible. > > > >>> > > > >>> As far as the community, several people have been active with the > > code > > > >> and > > > >>> several people have been active in other ways. As I mentioned I > have > > > >>> access to both communities as an admin, so I might be a good person > > to > > > >>> help figure this out. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thoughts? > > > >>> > > > >>> ~Michael > > > >>> > > > >>> On 5/25/13 9:16 AM, "John Blossom" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Pratik, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thank you for your thoughtful comments. These are the sorts of > > > delicate > > > >>>> issues with which I and others have been wrestling. I believe > that > > > your > > > >>>> summary is quite good, and I am eager to receive additional points > > of > > > >>>> view. > > > >>>> Wave concepts are very valid even today, and can take on a new > light > > > in > > > >> an > > > >>>> era of mobile-first Web communications. To me the importance of > > > >>>> establishing the protocol and the federation scheme is critical > for > > > the > > > >>>> success of all Wave products - without it, Wave will be less than > > > email, > > > >>>> and therefore never come close to one of its original goals to > make > > > >> email > > > >>>> redundant. More importantly, perhaps, social media platforms and > > other > > > >>>> collaborative communications tools are increasingly proprietary in > > > >> nature > > > >>>> - > > > >>>> or at least owned or dominated by large companies. There appears > to > > > be a > > > >>>> market gap for vendor-independent collaborative communications > that > > > can > > > >>>> scale across any number of up-to-date applications models. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I am applying the Wave Principles to this discussion, and hope > that > > > >> others > > > >>>> will also. There are other open discussions also, of course, that > > are > > > >> more > > > >>>> conceptual and collegial in their nature. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> There is no keeper of Wave at Google - I think that it's very safe > > to > > > >>>> offer > > > >>>> that definitively. They have products that have used Wave > concepts, > > > such > > > >>>> as > > > >>>> Google Drive Realtime API, but the code itself appears to be > > > completely > > > >>>> deprecated and Wave is never mentioned by anyone at Google > directly > > in > > > >>>> public and in private I doubt that it's done either. The lack of > > > >> activity > > > >>>> on the Google Group speaks for itself - Google is disinvested in > > Wave > > > >>>> except to borrow concepts from it. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Your point about the Google code being referred to as canonical > yet > > > >>>> pointing to the Apache site for where it's moving underscores the > > > >> delicate > > > >>>> situation. One could conclude, right or wrong, that Wave is not > > > >> supported > > > >>>> well in part because it's not entirely definitive that people > > > developing > > > >>>> its code base via Apache can do what they would deem appropriate > to > > > >> create > > > >>>> new iterations of canonical code. I would appreciate clarification > > on > > > >> this > > > >>>> point, and I imagine other would, also. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> All the best, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> John Blossom > > > >>>> > > > >>>> email: [email protected] > > > >>>> phone: 203.293.8511 > > > >>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Pratik Paranjape < > > > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> I had studied this point a while back, and for all practical > > > >> purposes, I > > > >>>>> had to conclude that the development of wave-protocol is very > > tightly > > > >>>>> tied > > > >>>>> to the development of the Wave as application. Please consider > > > >> following > > > >>>>> points: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1) Community Principles: > > > >>>>> http://www.waveprotocol.org/wave-community-principles > > > >>>>> The guidelines are quite open and discussion is encouraged to > be > > > >>>>> public, for all parties involved. > > > >>>>> 2) The wave-protocol site: > > https://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/ > > > >>>>> Community principles mention google-code site as canonical > > > >> reference > > > >>>>> for protocol, but the protocol site itself clearly states > > > >>>>> that the project is moving to Apache. No separate > wave-protocol > > > >>>>> project mentioned. > > > >>>>> 3) The wave-protocol Google group: > > > >>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/wave-protocol > > > >>>>> The group has no activity since Jan 2011. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> It makes sense that the protocol should evolve based on the > > feedback > > > >> of > > > >>>>> actual use in production environment, which as it stands right > now, > > > >> most > > > >>>>> likely will be coming through the use of Apache Wave (in a box). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> That said, there can be finer legal issues which are not matter > of > > > >>>>> public > > > >>>>> documentation. Is there a governing body at Google for > > wave-protocol? > > > >>>>> Can > > > >>>>> someone from Google comment on it? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> /** Start of Opinions from an interested party**/ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On general note, since John initiated a discussion, laying out > my 2 > > > >>>>> cents. > > > >>>>> Even though Wave did not go the spectacular path it was > originally > > > >>>>> designed > > > >>>>> for, I think both the protocol and the platform (CC-OT, Wave > Model > > > and > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> Client) have enough merits to make it into several fantastic > > products > > > >>>>> with > > > >>>>> certain aspects tweaked. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1. Simplification of the client > > > >>>>> 2. Clear use cases, differentiation on the basis of intended > users, > > > >> e.g. > > > >>>>> a) Technical and non-technical audience > > > >>>>> b) Features that are useful in Wiki vs features that are > useful > > in > > > >>>>> general purpose communication platform parallel to email. (Do you > > > want > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> other party to read the email exactly as you are typing > it? > > ) > > > >>>>> 3. Better integration with existing email technologies/servers > for > > > >>>>> smoother > > > >>>>> transition from email (through POP, IMAP) > > > >>>>> 4. As John pointed out, some direction towards Mobile adoption > > > >>>>> 5. ... > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am curious to know if anybody else here agrees with the summary > > > >> above, > > > >>>>> and with the opinion that the Wave needs redirection in order to > > have > > > >>>>> mainstream success. For a complex project as wave, everything > > depends > > > >> on > > > >>>>> the community momentum, and its a chicken-egg problem. > > > >>>>> I understand that some may think its a too big a change to be > > talking > > > >>>>> about, ( and that coming from a non-contributor). Aim is to just > > > >> collect > > > >>>>> ideas and to check if there are others who feel the same way. I > am > > > >>>>> currently busy on a different start-up project, but have definite > > > >> plans > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>> play with Wave in its communication platform form, as I get the > > > >> chance. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I think to this point, objective has been to get WAIB up and > > running > > > >> at > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> level of production deployment. Kune.cc has been using wave in > > > >>>>> production, > > > >>>>> if they are willing, their feedback and adoption report can be of > > > >> great > > > >>>>> help. The current contributors have been doing a great job of > > getting > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> client-server running, taking over from somewhat not-ready source > > the > > > >>>>> project received. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> /** End Opinions **/ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>> Pratik Paranjape. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, 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 > > > >> > > > > > >
