incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving Wave Forward
Date Wed, 29 May 2013 14:59:19 GMT
Thomas,

You have laid out the correct roadmap overall, I think. I'd add a little
icing on the cake - in addition to a well-defined developer API toolkit (my
interpretation of 1-4), we need an updated version of a demo app in the
most ideal language - generic as in today's WiaB client but a testbed for
services that can be adopted easily into much more targeted apps. Perhaps
we would need two or more generic apps, to show general use capabilities
and how to target them.

I think that you bring up an important point - Apache owns the whole stack,
which apparently is still an intertwining of server-side and client-side
functionality. I agree that Apache's role is best suited for 1-3. With that
said, though, if the rest is up to other people, we will need Apache's
support in allowing the Wave brand to encompass the Apache Wave Web server
components supported by them and the API-plus-apps-toolkit supported in
open source format by another organization. I don't want to presume what's
right or wrong here, I am only laying out what seems logical so that ASF
can consider this and help us to formulate an appropriate course of action.

Thanks,

John

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would it be correct to say the steps towards multiple clients (both desktop
> and mobile) would be:
>
> 1. Separate out the server and client code we have atm. (hard/long job?)
> 2. Formalize a working protocol between the client and server.
> 3. Document this protocol nicely.
> 4. Implement this protocol into a library so it can be used easily by
> anyone making a client, also making updating those
> clients easier if the protocol changes. (just put in a newer version of the
> library).
> 5 (option) Ports of that library to a few languages.
> 6. Hopefully mobile and alternative clients appear using these libs.
> ?
>
> The first parts would need to be done by Apache, but possibly 4/5/6 can all
> be left to 3rd parties.
> -Thomas
>
> On 29 May 2013 10:37, Pratik Paranjape <pratikparanjape@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > p.s. I was able to setup (server-to-server) federation long back, I
> think a
> > few months after Google IO10, it was not easy, but it had worked. Back
> then
> > there were quite a few guides available.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Pratik Paranjape <
> > pratikparanjape@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello John,
> > >
> > > It was good to see the presentation, thank you for putting it out.
> > > Ambitious but tempting.
> > >
> > > I would like to comment and emphasize on couple of things others have
> > > rightly said before:
> > >
> > > 1) Federation as defined in Wave-protocol is collaboration among the
> > > servers of different organizations to exchange the wave/wavelets e.g.
> > Wave
> > > server under domain acmedotcom communicating with wave server under
> > > zuludotcom, in real time. This has always been an implemented feature
> of
> > > the wave code base and was one of the first features released by the
> > Google
> > > team. Protocol evolution was left open ended for changing requirements
> > > depending on adoption.
> > >
> > > If I understood correctly, you are using the word federation as in
> > > allowing different devices communicating with each other. This feature
> is
> > > really a byproduct of good server design. All communication WILL have
> to
> > go
> > > through server. As long as the server endpoints and data models are
> well
> > > defined, its possible for anyone to write a client and represent the
> > > fetched data in any desired format. In other words, Federation at its
> > > core : Any device can federate with any other, is actually adoption
> > > dependent and will not require special design for Wave. Encouraging
> > > development of host of such clients. possibly providing samples, can
> > > definitely be a point.
> > >
> > > 2) Even though there are several spots for serious improvements in wave
> > > code ( mostly because of the new technologies and current Browser
> > landscape
> > > especially atuned to a product like wave: new editors, reactive servers
> > > like node and play!, faster databases like mongo and redis), it will be
> > > unwise to throw away the code and start from scratch (Reference:
> > > Deprecating Java Code in slides ). Its not a small project by any
> > > consideration and as Michael pointed out, unless there is sudden inflow
> > of
> > > a number of developers, its not going to be easy to make big changes
> even
> > > for a commercial entity. Best way would be to put up issues one by one
> > and
> > > go through solving them (as the team is doing currently). Re-design and
> > new
> > > architecture, which is undeniably necessary, will have to evolve
> through
> > > this path.
> > >
> > > Hello Michael,
> > >
> > > 2)
> > >> The current codebase is largely a proof of concept.  It has some
> > >> potential, but I think most of us would agree that some time spent
> > >> re-architecting how we want things to work and morphing the code base
> > into
> > >> that (or rewriting it) would be in the projects best interests.  Again
> > if
> > >> we have a roadmap and people who feel strongly about working on those
> > >> areas, we can divide and concours.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for acknowledging
> > > this
> > > .
> > > Coming from someone who has been involved with Wave since very early,
> it
> > > makes the point official. It will indeed first step to prepare a road
> map
> > > and get agreement on a list of necessary changes. I had posted a list
> in
> > > one of the earlier messages.
> > > Of course as Upayavira has pointed out, everything of it will depend on
> > > the developer interest, which is not up to the same level as proposed
> > > changes at this moment.
> > >
> > > Wishing best for Wave.
> > >
> > > Pratik Paranjape
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:10 AM, John Blossom <jblossom@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dave,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, I think that we're on the same page. No doubt that Wave
> > federation
> > >> holds out tremendous promise. Hopefully the Apache community can move
> > >> towards deciding how they'd like to progress towards more advanced
> > goals.
> > >> I
> > >> welcome any and all suggestions to that end.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> John
> > >> On May 28, 2013 11:08 PM, "Dave" <wave@glark.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > John,
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that wiab provides the mobile client
> > that
> > >> > you are looking for, just that the wave federation concepts and
> their
> > >> > implementation in the wiab server are likely to be a good fit for
> your
> > >> > usecases. You suggested that the federation paradigms needed a
> > complete
> > >> > re-think for a "mobile-first world", and my understanding is that
> this
> > >> > isn't the case.
> > >> >
> > >> > So while federation and the "server" component sound like a
> reasonable
> > >> > fit, the mobile _client_  (supporting off-line access etc.) doesn't
> > >> exist
> > >> > yet.
> > >> >
> > >> > Over the years there have been a few discussions about formalising
> the
> > >> > client/server protocols within wiab - but so far there hasn't been
> the
> > >> > manpower to implement it.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Dave
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 29/05/13 03:30, John Blossom wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Dave,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I think that you've captured much of both the paradigm and the
> > paradox.
> > >> >> Wave could - and should - be able to do these things, but in the
> > >> existing
> > >> >> kit you really cannot do it for many of these points, and where
it
> > >> does do
> > >> >> it one cannot say that the mobile-Web interface is elegant. In
none
> > of
> > >> the
> > >> >> cases, AFAIK, does it deal with the case of people initiating
new
> > Waves
> > >> >> offline on a mobile device and adding in applets or shifting to
> > >> different
> > >> >> UIs for the same wave. Also not covered in the mobile client is
the
> > >> >> potential for peer-to-peer mobile Wave communication. This will
be
> of
> > >> >> particular importance to "next billion online people" markets.
I
> > agree
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> with connectivity, the client may communicate to a primary server
> for
> > >> >> further downstream federation for specific waves (other servers
for
> > >> other
> > >> >> waves, if done properly, if there is not node-to-node credentials,
> as
> > >> in
> > >> >> company X only wants to communicate with mobile clients directly).
> > The
> > >> >> email analogy is certainly clear, but Wave federation and
> > client-server
> > >> >> functions need to focus first on getting waves to support multiple
> > Wave
> > >> >> UIs, so that there will be compelling reasons to build out
> federation
> > >> for
> > >> >> email support, via presentation layer adapters.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So if the client/server break is/can be formalised in code, then
we
> > can
> > >> >> move towards a mobile-capable HTML5/JS client which is efficient,
> > >> robust,
> > >> >> supports multiple UIs on top of the same data sets, and which
can
> > have
> > >> >> offline, server-like functions which can enable peer-to-peer
> > >> federation.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I may not be completely up to speed on the current architecture's
> > >> status,
> > >> >> but so far the responses that I am receiving seem to confirm where
> > the
> > >> >> architecture needs to adapt to modern requirements and performance
> > >> >> expectations. Hopefully we can all work together to address the
> huge
> > >> >> opportunities that those requirements present.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> John
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Dave <wave@glark.co.uk>
wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  John,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I'm not a committer, but I have some familiarity with the
wave
> > stack.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On 29/05/13 01:23, John Blossom wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>  People need their waves to live on their mobile devices,
not just
> > on
> > >> >>>> cloud Web servers. After all, email provides local mobile
offline
> > >> >>>> capabilities.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>  I think you might not be 100% up to speed with some of
the Wave
> > >> >>> architecture. In an email world, people have mobile off-line
> access,
> > >> but
> > >> >>> they still use email servers.  The email server often has
the
> > >> definitive
> > >> >>> copy of their email [i.e. imap], and mobile just retains a
cached
> > >> copy.
> > >> >>> In
> > >> >>> a mobile world, you still need a permanent server address
to
> deliver
> > >> mail
> > >> >>> to, or send it through.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> This is the same with wave:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> client <---c---> server <---f---> server <---c--->
client
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The federation protocol [f] sits between the two servers,
and to
> > >> support
> > >> >>> mobile clients you would expect those clients to:
> > >> >>>   - maintain cached waves
> > >> >>>   - allow off-line access to those waves
> > >> >>>   - allow off-line changes to those waves
> > >> >>>   - propagate changes in real-time where possible
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> In theory a wave server can support different clients.
> Unfortunately
> > >> in
> > >> >>> the current wiab codebase, there is only one client - which
is the
> > >> >>> bundled
> > >> >>> web-client. The current code base does sort-of have the logical
> > >> >>> client/server separation as outlined above (though some code
is
> > shared
> > >> >>> between the server and the client), but there isn't a formally
> > defined
> > >> >>> client protocol [c], or separation of the web-client.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So in a broad sense, to support mobile one would need to:
> > >> >>>   - formalise the client-server protocol [c]
> > >> >>>   - implement that in WIAB (ideally allowing Server and web-client
> > to
> > >> be
> > >> >>> deployed separately)
> > >> >>>   - implement your mobile clients.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Any mobile client would still communicate through a server
(as
> email
> > >> does
> > >> >>> today) allowing (among other things) third parties to interact
> with
> > >> waves
> > >> >>> whilst _I_ am offline.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>   So if you are considering the possibility of a mobile-first
> world,
> > >> you
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> really do need to
> > >> >>>> rethink existing Wave federation paradigms seriously.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>  There may be some corner cases which would need tweaking,
but my
> > >> >>> understanding is that the core wave federation paradigms /
> protocol
> > >> (and
> > >> >>> the wiab federation implementation) suit mobile very well.
They
> were
> > >> >>> explicitly designed to support real-time when online, and
> > disconnected
> > >> >>> access when offline.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Someone please correct anything I've got wrong!
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Dave
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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