incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hello
Date Sun, 26 May 2013 04:38:42 GMT
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 <fleeky@gmail.com> 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 <yourhty@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me know any on needs Virtual private server for testings
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Michael MacFadden <
> > michael.macfadden@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Angus,
> > >
> > > I can take care of the notice.
> > >
> > > ~Michael
> > >
> > > On May 25, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Angus Turner <angusisfree@gmail.com>
> 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
> > > > angusisfree@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:00 AM, John Blossom <jblossom@gmail.com>
> > > 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: jblossom@gmail.com
> > > >> phone: 203.293.8511
> > > >> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Michael MacFadden <
> > > >> michael.macfadden@gmail.com> 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" <jblossom@gmail.com>
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: jblossom@gmail.com
> > > >>>> phone: 203.293.8511
> > > >>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Pratik Paranjape <
> > > >>>> pratikparanjape@gmail.com> 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 <
> > darkflame@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> 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 <uv@odoko.co.uk>
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: jblossom@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>> phone: 203.293.8511
> > > >>>>>>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Christian
Grobmeier
> > > >>>>>>>> <grobmeier@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hello John,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM, John
Blossom
> > > >>>>> <jblossom@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 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: jblossom@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>> phone: 203.293.8511
> > > >>>>>>>>>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
> > > >>>>>>>>> https://www.timeandbill.de
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message