I've a number of thoughts that I've been withholding since they relate significantly to Google's own plans for incorporating the WFP (or simply OT) into existing products, open sourcing promised components and, more generally, simply keeping the WFP alive (and development around it).
I believe we were given some indication that Google Wave PMs would make some sort of semi-official announcement at some point in the near future regarding the future of Google Wave. Any idea when that will be and/or what it will include? Gratefully, Jd On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Torben Weis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I suggest having a look at this conversation: > > https://wave.google.com/wave/waveref/googlewave.com/w+x9ezNAnGC > > Especially at the end of the discussion, Joseph and I considered to do more > or less what you mentioned here: > Provide a general purpose OT and federation protocol for all kind of data. > > This protocol could be used to implement a google wave clone, you could use > it for shared editing of your music library and play lists. > Joseph even suggested to build a FUSE client, i.e. to build an OT-based > file system that can be mounted into the normal file system. > Or you could build a distributed and open facebook clone. > There are many cool things that could be built on top of a general purpose > federation with OT integration. > > I started implementing some of the ideas mentioned in this wave discussion: > > http://code.google.com/p/lightwave/ > > The aim of this project is to come up with an easy to install/easy to > maintain wave server featuring OT and federation. > For the sake of simplicity all communication is performed via HTTP/HTTPS. > No need to deal with XMPP, protobuf, base64 encoding and so on. > > Any input is highly welcome. > > Greetings > Torben > > 2010/8/10 Ian Roughley <[email protected]> > > We have developed our own pure JS editor (Googles required GWT) that uses >> Googles OT code to drive >> some functions. >> >> A co-worker today made a point which is also worth sharing (paraphrasing): >> requiring native OT >> integration is a high barrier for entry, but it does provide benefits, and >> OT is being used without >> Wave in various places. What if WFP was simply OT against any document? >> And it was up to the >> collaborating partners or market segment to create and conform to the >> document structure. >> >> The WFP could be used for more than hierarchical message structure, and >> used for many more markets >> to provide a real-time document transport. >> >> Ian Roughley >> Pulse Platform Architect >> >> On 08/07/2010 06:50 PM, Joel Dietz wrote: >> > Dear Ian, >> > >> > I understand your concern re: the JS Editor but not all of the >> > particulars. What is Novell using as a client? >> > >> > As far as I am aware there is nothing out there available but Google >> > promised to deliver something eventually. Also, AFAIK, there has been >> > no discussion of the integration of OT w/ other Google products, which >> > must use an lightweight but functional editor (Splash?) different than >> > the one currently in use at the Wave Preview. If we get some greater >> > part of that open sourced we can potentially iterate on it. >> > >> > Hard to say much more than that now, but I completely agree with you >> > that the JS Editor + WFP + OT all have to be in place for there to be >> > any real viability for Wave. Each needs to be open sourced and part of >> > an open, public decision making organization so that improvements can >> > be made. It seems that most of us are agreed on that. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Joel >> > >> > On Aug 5, 11:11 pm, Ian Roughley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The short answer is yes, both from Novell Pulse and me personally. >> >> >> >> I believe that federation is one feature that was truly going to >> liberate the data, making it >> >> available cross-boundaries. It's the reason why email succeeded, and >> it would enabled true >> >> collaboration. >> >> >> >> My concern is that WFP is tightly coupled with OT, and OT is complex. >> It is no small feat (trust me >> >> I know from experience) in taking existing editors and infrastructure, >> and replacing it with >> >> OT-enabled infrastructure in an existing product. And translating >> between "normal" (text/xml/etc.) >> >> content and real-time OT content leads to problems. So convincing >> vendors to make this leap is >> >> going to be difficult. >> >> >> >> One thing that no one has addressed on this list is that by continuing >> WFP you also need to continue >> >> OT and the JS editor. If you don't have a strong fully-featured >> non-buggy editor that >> >> people/companies can use without developing themselves, OT won't be >> continued or used. Without OT, >> >> the WFP protocol breaks down. It's all a mini-ecosystem. >> >> >> >> I wonder whether a slightly different protocol that would allow for the >> federation of existing >> >> non-real-time content as well as real-time content would be received >> better by the community. One >> >> that avoided the need for significant code changes, and one that would >> allow services to federate >> >> any type of content. >> >> >> >> Ian Roughley >> >> Pulse Platform Architect. >> >> >> >> On 08/05/2010 08:11 PM, James Purser wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Ian, >> >> >> >>> Thanks for the update from Novell. >> >> >> >>> Given that one of the features that Pulse was pimping was the ability >> >>> to conduct federated conversations, do you think Novell would be >> >>> interested in continuing to be involved in developing the Federation >> >>> protocol? >> >> >> >>> I know you probably can't answer right away, I'm just trying to get a >> >>> feel for who, corporately would be interested in furthering the wave >> >>> tech. >> >> >> >>> James >> > >> >> -- >> 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. >> >> > > > -- > --------------------------- > Prof. Torben Weis > Universitaet Duisburg-Essen > [email protected] > > -- > 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]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > -- 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.
