Brett, Yes, the reliable delivery of messages as discussed is for the federation protocol, not client-server protocol. The client-server protocol has its own set of issues, thought the lightweight one shipped with fedone should be sufficient for basic use.
thanks, Jochen On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Brett Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, jochen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Nov 20, 12:08 pm, Michael K <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi. >> > >> > As I've mentioned in the "Time for a Client/Server protocol" >> > discussion >> > (https://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol/browse_thread/thread/18... >> > ) a while back, I am planning to take the existing FedOne console >> > client code, and separate its communications layer into a java >> > library. This way people (including myself) can start making their own >> > clients for FedOne, at least in java, and not have to wait for a >> > complete C/S protocol to be developed (which I think is still a long >> > way off). >> > >> > I just finished setting up my development environment today, and I >> > will be familiarizing myself with the FedOne code over the next week >> > or two. I will post updates in this group when there is something >> > worthy of mentioning. >> > >> > Anyway, I would certainly be very interested to know who else is >> > working on which parts that are still missing from FedOne, and to >> > coordinate my work with other contributors. >> > >> > There are still a lot of things missing from FedOne. We should make a >> > detailed list on that page you've started. A client/server API (or >> > preferably a proper C/S protocol) and persistance are the two most >> > critical parts. ACL and client-side OT also come to mind. What else? >> >> Hi Mikael, >> >> You correctly point out that persistence, ACL and client-side OT are >> critical for a non-prototype system. Another missing critical feature >> is reliable delivery of updates (see an earlier post of mine: >> >> https://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol/browse_thread/thread/96e7c637c2332881/786f64cdf3d67953?hl=en&lnk=gst&[email protected]#786f64cdf3d67953) >> - we are working on a better requirements spec for this. >> >> regards, >> Jochen >> > > Jochen, > > Correct me if i'm wrong, but at least for reliable delivery of deltas > between a server and directly connected clients, the current code in fed one > should be sufficient, yes? Or are there corner cases I haven't thought about > yet? > > All the issues raised in your earlier email seem to be about reliable > delivery of messages between federating servers, unless I'm mistaken... > > brett > > -- > Brett Morgan http://domesticmouse.livejournal.com/ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
