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: Roadmap
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:56:50 GMT
Liking what I am hearing.

My ten cents:

client/server/common model is good for libraries, yes, but need
well-defined client APIs to allow multiple apps to access common data
stores. Otherwise you get more balkanisation and the data model never takes
off.

federation required, preferably in a way that will support sync/async
collaboration and store-forward data models.

Would like to see Wave 3.0 ideas considered.

All the best,

John Blossom

email: jblossom@gmail.com
phone: 203.293.8511
google+: google.com/+JohnBlossom

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24 March 2015 at 16:32, Dave Ball <wave@glark.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >>  Might it be better to have three "parts"?
> >  - common
> >  - server
> >  - client
> >
> > Common would contain the document and concurrency model etc. Client and
> > Server would both depend on Common. Common would compile to JS for the
> > Client, but Server would depend directly on Common so wouldn't need to
> > depend on the compiled javascript.
> >
> >
> +1
> I think this would be the best way to maintain compatibility between
> client(s) and sever(s). Downside is people making non-Java clients (or
> non-JS via GWT) would need their own common implementation.
> But it wouldnt be any worse then now.
>

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