I'd like to add to what Soren said: we've discussed whether we should include
the protocol and the
implementation of the protocol in the proposal. What we concluded, is that
having everything
together would be the simplest for the time being... although I don't think
anyone in the discussion
had *really* strong opinions in either direction.
>From my standpoint (as a Novell employee and part of the Novell Vibe project),
>I'm very interested
in ensuring that the protocol and libraries are licensed in a way that they can
be leveraged by
commercial software to allow for interoperability. I'd also go as far as
saying that it's in
everyones best interest for this to be the case :-)
/Ian
On 11/29/2010 07:15 AM, Soren Lassen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Santiago Gala <santiago.g...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Dan Peterson <dpeter...@google.com> wrote:
>> (...)
>>> To keep things moving, I'd like to go ahead and put this proposal to a vote
>>> starting on Tuesday on the west coast of the US (roughly 24 hours from now).
>>>
>>
>> I want to get some information about an issue that, like the
>> name/branding one, is not a blocker for incubator entry, but can
>> change significantly the level of third party support.
>>
>> It is the governance model for the protocol suit. If I understood
>> correctly, the project is scoped towards the software server
>> component. It does not include development of the protocol libraries.
>
> The project will include all the source code for the "wave in a box"
> server, including all the ("library"?) code for the data model, the
> federation protocol implementation, the client-server protocol
> implementation, and the robot and data APIs, as well as all the
> documentation/specifications for the data model, protocols, and APIs
> hosted at waveprotocol.org.
>
>> Does it include test suites beyond the server being a big test harness
>> itself?
>
> There are no test suites other than unittests for the abovementioned
> implementations.
>
>> It would be great to be able to know the plans for those:
>> - protocol specification and maintenance
>> - reference libraries for the protocol
>> - test suites and specifically test kits if any is planned
>>
>> I think that clarifying those scopes would be great.
>
> Presently, we regard the protocol specification as a specification of
> the wave-in-a-box implementation and, thus, the specification belongs
> together with the implementation in the proposed Apache project.
> Eventually, we would like to formally standardize the protocol, i.e.,
> agree with external parties outside the project to use the protocol
> between different implementations. When we get to the point when we
> start negotiating such agreements, we envision that we will spin out
> the protocol from the proposed Apache project into a standardisation
> working group (probably under the wings of IETF or some other
> standards body) which will govern these negotiations. The working
> group will need to decide on things like reference libraries and test
> suites. We're not deciding now whether the code in the proposed Apache
> project will be used for these purposes.
>
> Soren
>
>> Regards
>> Santiago
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
