incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fleeky Flanco <fle...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Wave Kickstarter
Date Mon, 02 Dec 2013 21:43:23 GMT
the beauty of joseph trying to do a kickstarter to essentially restart
development on a 'spiritual' successor to wave is actually wave could still
stay in asf, as a legacy fallback option.

i feel like joseph manning up and really trying to set some real focus to
his own coding goals will be a win-win for everybody.

the real question is whats the best way to support the coders.


On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Joseph Gentle <josephg@gmail.com> wrote:

> In defence of the team, it always takes awhile to figure out what the
> best way to modularize a software project is when you're implementing
> a new idea. The right abstractions always seem obvious in retrospect,
> but until you've thought about it a lot its not obvious at all. For
> example, moving from apache+cgi_bin -> apache+mod_php -> python+wsgi /
> ruby+rack -> ruby+sinatra / nodejs took _years_ of iteration.
>
> -J
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Assuming the protocol still maintains waves ability's;
> > *open
> > *federated
> > *selective sharing (that is, sharing X with just a few people)
> > *realtime
> > Wave should be the name given to the server to server protocol, imho, but
> > not much else.
> > Google made the mistake of calling everything wave. The server to server
> > protocol, the client and the conversation thread in the client. That was
> > just silly really.
> >
> > Ideally anything developed should maintain server to server compatibility
> > with Apaches. But, at this point, if this project takes off better then
> it
> > would be upto Apache's java server to adapt to this ones.
> >
> >
> > ~~~
> > Thomas & Bertines online review show:
> > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html
> > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :)
> >
> >
> > On 2 December 2013 20:30, Patrick Coleman <patcoleman@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The proposal seems to include rewriting the OT stack, changing the
> >> language(s) the client and server are written in, and moving to github.
> >> If this is the case, is there any point in still being called Wave?
> >>
> >> It sounds like not much will be able to be transferred other than
> >> knowledge,
> >> so is there any reason to not just create a kickstarter for GentleWare
> (or
> >> whatever you want to call it :p)?
> >> I guess it is still a wave-y project, but this is kind of like the
> >> Theseus's paradox of project naming.
> >>
> >> (although I'm not that familiar with licensing concerns, so maybe
> there's
> >> part of the federation protocol or the OT spec which
> >> can only be used by 'Wave' in which case it makes sense).
> >>
>

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