incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From 田传武...@goodow.com>
Subject Re: Wave and OpenOffice
Date Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:37:09 GMT
I just re-implement Drive Realtime API using wave related open source
projects.
realtime-operation <https://github.com/goodow/realtime-operation> uses the
ot algorithm from Apache Wave
realtime-channel <https://github.com/goodow/realtime-channel> and
realtime-server <https://github.com/goodow/realtime-server> are repackaged
from Walkaround
realtime-model <https://github.com/goodow/realtime-model> is a java port of
Google Drive Realtime Javascript API


2013/6/17 Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro <zmyaro@gmail.com>

> You mean the code under-the-hood of the Drive Realtime API is the same code
> that powers Walkaround?  Or do you mean you are working on using the
> Realtime API to power something like Walkaround?
>
>
> —Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro
>
>
> On 17 June 2013 08:40, 田传武 <i@goodow.com> wrote:
>
> > I implemented Google Drive Realtime API based on Walkaround.
> > See https://github.com/goodow/realtime
> > and http://realtimeplayground.goodow.com/
> >
> > It supports android, javascript(using gwt-export) and objective-c(using
> > j2objc).
> >
> >
> > 2013/6/16 Joseph Gentle <josephg@gmail.com>
> >
> > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Dave <wave@glark.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > On 16/06/13 09:29, Michael MacFadden wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> All,
> > > >>
> > > >> What we would need to do to support integration with Open Office,
or
> > any
> > > >> other app, is abstract our OT Core Engine in two ways.  First it
> would
> > > >> need to become a stand alone service that other apps could hook in
> to.
> > > >> Second we would need to change the operations to be more generic
> than
> > > the
> > > >> current set that are tied to the wave conversation model. The
> current
> > OT
> > > >> model is not flexible enough to become a core OT framework for other
> > > apps
> > > >> to use.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael,
> > > >
> > > > Have you had a chance to look at the SLOB layer in google walkaround
> > [1]?
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > Much of the walkaround code is not specific to Wave, but factored out
> > as
> > > a
> > > > separate, more general collaboration layer that manages shared live
> > > objects.
> > > > These objects can be modified by multiple clients at the same time,
> > with
> > > > changes made by any client immediately broadcast to all others. The
> > Wave
> > > > application is built on top of this, but the live collaboration layer
> > is
> > > > flexible enough to support other applications.
> > > > </quote>
> > > >
> > > > It's apache licensed, and took at least some insperation from
> ShareJS.
> > >
> > > It was sort of the other way around. ShareJS's OT architecture was
> > > inspired by hallway chats with Dan Danilatos. Walkaround was written
> > > at the same time as sharejs. Its all very incestuous.
> > >
> > > As I understand it, walkaround's architecture is similar to ShareJS
> > > except that out of the box walkaround only has support for wave's
> > > wavelet/blip ot model.
> > >
> > > -J
> > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://code.google.com/p/walkaround/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> One of the things that always struck me in Wave was that the
> > > conversation
> > > >> model used OT but that the gadget API did not.  This is in part
> > because
> > > >> gadgets had their own data model which had nothing to do with
> > > >> conversations (lines, annotations, etc) which were not supported
> well
> > by
> > > >> Wave's OT.
> > > >>
> > > >> The google real time API is a step in that direction, but there are
> a
> > > >> couple problems with it.  1) It is a javascript API rather than a
> > > service.
> > > >> 2) You are forced to use it's data types rather than your own, and
> 3)
> > > your
> > > >> data must be stored on Drive.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have seen two proprietary OT engines that seem to work well acting
> > as
> > > a
> > > >> service and one open source one.  If we are to grow, I think this
is
> > the
> > > >> direction the OT code needs to go in.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think Joseph and I (so far as I can tell) are probably the two
> most
> > > >> interested people in doing this.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think we need to develop mini communities within wave.  Those that
> > are
> > > >> focused on the OT / CC Stack, those that are focused on clients,
> those
> > > >> that are interested in federation, etc.  If we can pair up some
> folks
> > > that
> > > >> are interested in each of these areas (and others), I think we can
> > make
> > > >> some progress.
> > > >>
> > > >> ~Michael
> > > >>
> > > >> On 6/15/13 8:25 PM, "Yuri Z" <vega113@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Just a note - the rendering to static HTML is experimental and
> wasn't
> > > >>> actually submitted to official Apache Wave repo since there was
no
> > > >>> agreement on the way on how this should implemented right without
> > > >>> breaking
> > > >>> static bindings when compiling from GWT to Javascript.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Zachary ³Gamer_Z.² Yaro
> > > >>> <zmyaro@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> @Fleeky, Yuri actually added some
> > > >>>> code<
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/vega113/WaveInCloud/tree/master/src/org/waveprotocol/b
> > > >>>> ox/server/rpc/render
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> WIAB for static HTML rendering, so that could be a solution
to
> your
> > > >>>> publishing problems.  In addition, Google Wave, Rizzoma, and
(I*
> > > *think)
> > > >>>> WIAB (with Yuri's code) support exporting to HTML or PDF.
 Is that
> > > what
> > > >>>> you
> > > >>>> were asking for?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> @John, I definitely like the idea of being able to log into
a wave
> > > >>>> server
> > > >>>> from OpenOffice and edit waves through it, but I think we
need a
> > > >>>> standardized wave client-server protocol first.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ‹Zachary ³Gamer_Z.² Yaro
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 15 June 2013 12:34, Fleeky Flanco <fleeky@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> john, i was infact using wave as a google docs replacement
for a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> while it
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> worked pretty good the only problem i had with it was
that i
> > couldnt
> > > >>>>> 'publish' static updates to a front facing page to share
with
> > people
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> who
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> didnt feel like registering on my wave server.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> an openoffice for wave would be extremely usefull, and
could have
> > an
> > > >>>>> extremely large impact imo. wave is also already very
very close
> to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> having
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> this funcitonality. etherpad lite sortof already does
this, but i
> > > kept
> > > >>>>> going back to wave because it was actually more responsive,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> featurefull,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> and actually crashed less.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM, John Blossom <
> jblossom@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I had the down-the-road thought just now that I wanted
to put
> into
> > > >>>>>> circulation before I forgot about it.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> One of the challenges that we will face in developing
open
> source
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Wave
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> that Google and others - but mostly Google - are out
there using
> > > >>>>>> operational transform technologies also. So far the
Google Drive
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Realtime
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> API hasn't had much impact, but it's being "demoed"
successfully
> > in
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Drive
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> apps like Docs and Presentations.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The advantages of an open source Wave implementation
are, of
> > course,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> people can own their own data and identity management
without
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> having to
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> rely on a specific vendor's infrastructure. But the
flip side of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> that you have to look carefully at infrastructure
that
> integrates
> > OT
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> understand what you have to do similarly to showcase
your
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> technologies.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> That brings me to OpenOffice. At some point it will
be
> beneficial
> > to
> > > >>>>>> consider how the Wave API can enable apps in the OpenOffice
> suite
> > to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> take
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> advantage of OT technologies in Wave and its other
various
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> features. In
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> fact, it's not unthinkable that an OpenOffice for
Wave variant
> > might
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> feasible at some point, maintaining a familiar office
automation
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> paradigm
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> as a user interface for those who relate to that sort
of tool
> but
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> having
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> the power of Wave to drive collaborative document
editing,
> > comments,
> > > >>>>>> embedded apps and so on, with Wave data structures
underneath
> the
> > OO
> > > >>>>>> interface.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Just idle thoughts for now, but if we make good progress
over
> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> next
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> several months, it's a sub-project that may help to
attract more
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> developers
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> to Wave technologies.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> All the best,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> John Blossom
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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