If we want to stick to nosql databases, redis might be worth a look.
Redis supports transactions and it has a synchronous save operation.
-J
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Michael MacFadden
wrote:
> This has come up several times. Tad Glines and I have talked about this a
> few times on the
I've been pretty much on holidays since the summit. Who has the most
recent version of the code?
-J
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Michael MacFadden
wrote:
> All,
>
> Just wondering what the current status on the HTTP federation project is. We
> haven't heard much lately.
>
> ~Michael
e release candidate of which is scheduled for January
>> 28th. I imagine by the time we implement any other non file based
>> persistence solution for wave, mongodb will have satisfied its biggest
>> negative for use in wave.
>>
>> I am fully in favor of multiple persistence
til the data has been persisted
> at one, a quorum or all Cassandra instances.
>
> -Tad
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>> Yeah - great to know. May as well just stick with mongodb then.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> -J
>>
>&g
I'm exporting out some of the model code into a native javascript
library. Would hosting the resulting library somewhere be useful to
anyone?
(I'm using this - http://code.google.com/p/gwt-exporter/ , combined
with a lightweight shim & some added annotations).
-J
I'm writing a little OT database server, and pulling out some of the
model code to use with it. Each OT document will be an opaque JSON
object. Each OT document type will be defined by the following
functions:
1. snapshot = New()
2. snapshot' = Apply(snapshot, op)
3. (op1', op2') = Transform(op1,
I've tweaked the build script to use GWT to build the model module
(org.waveprotocol.wave.model.Model). The compilation succeeds, but its
getting a bunch of module validation errors (below).
We used to get errors like this on the normal client build and they
seem to have been fixed in the last few
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Alex North wrote:
> +wave-dev again
Oops. I've been spoiled by google groups.
> On 25 January 2011 02:30, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>> ... is this right?
>>
>> - Make a client-side WaveletData object
>> - Wrap the WaveletData in
All these ops will make identical changes to documents:
[ insert 'abc', delete 'def' ]
[ delete 'def', insert 'abc' ]
[ insert 'a', delete 'def', insert 'bc' ]
...
Are the ops actually identical? If so, does wave in a box have a
canonical ordering for the op components?
-J
I've just found a surprising bug of sorts in my OT code. It turns out
compose has peculiar side effects in terms of information loss / gain.
Imagine you have a compose function '+', infix transform function 'T',
server op 's' and client ops 'c1' and 'c2', its possible that:
s T c1 T c2 != s T (c
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
> s = insert: 's', skip: 1
> c1 = delete: 'x'
> c2 = insert: 'c'
>
>
> // Make println() usable.
> DocOpScrub.setShouldScrubByDefault(false);
>
> DocOp s = new DocOpBuilder()
that the 'c' was inserted to the left of the delete location.
>
> So based on this one example I think having the Composer place inserts that
> occur after deletes to the left of the deletes would work, however I think
> this could break depending on if the composition is hap
Dear wave refugees!
As many of you know, I really want wave's technology to be usable in
other situations. So I made ShareJS - a NodeJS server & javascript
client for doing concurrent editing with arbitrary data.
Here's a simple concurrent wiki built on top of sharejs:
http://sharejs.org:8000/wik
can see *so* many uses for this. You could, for example, use
> it to concurrently edit 3d data stored in a xml like fornat (x3d for
> example) - multiplayer 3dsmax anyone? :P
>
> -Thomas
>
>
> ~~
> Reviews of anything, by anyone;
> www.rateoholic.co.uk
> Please
Oops - misread 'Thomas' as 'Torben' :)
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
> Yeah - you should be able to do realtime collaborative editing in
> pretty much any application, so long as you can describe the OT
> semantics for your data. Plain tex
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Lennard de Rijk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I also think it is something that was chosen because it was a Google
> project. However the amount of templates should still be pretty limited (7?)
> and we might want to switch over to something more publicly documented?
>
> Greet
Heh - that looks like sharejs:
https://github.com/josephg/ShareJS/
I don't have a committee, but I've got OT-based syncronization of
arbitrary JSON objects working. So you can write web apps and keep
complex data structures synced up.
There's a lot of little OT projects popping up at the moment.
re?
>
> -Thomas
>
>
>
> ~~
> Reviews of anything, by anyone;
> www.rateoholic.co.uk
> Please try out my new site and give feedback :)
>
>
>
> On 8 July 2011 18:27, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>> Heh - that looks like sharejs:
>> https://github.com/
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>> As far as I know, the client-server protocol for wave in a box is
>> pretty stable at this point. Its documented here:
>> http://www.waveprotocol.org/protocol/design-proposals/clientserver-protocol
>> ... Though that documentation is probably
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado
wrote:
> El 15/10/11 00:37, Yuri Z escribió:
>> I think someone mentioned that probably just updating to Jetty 7 will
>> suffice.
>
> Sorry, suffice for what? to solve the problem of compatibility between
> chrome and socket.io 0.6? I don't
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Scott Wilson
wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2011, at 06:45, Joseph Gentle wrote:
> Atmosphere is looking like the best option for java websockets right now.
>
> Bayeux is an interesting fallback option - I've also played around with using
> Faye for wave-
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado
wrote:
> El 17/10/11 13:43, Joseph Gentle escribió:
>> Yeah I played with faye for awhile too. I got stung by:
>> - Faye doesn't guarantee ordering of messages
>> - Faye will send your own messages back to you
>
Hey, awesome.
I wonder if its wire protocol can be made compatible with sharejs.
-J
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Christian Ohler wrote:
> Fellow wavers,
>
> rather than making waves accessible in Google Docs, which takes too
> long, we are releasing our code in a form that will hopefully b
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Christian Ohler wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 15:02, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>> I wonder if its wire protocol can be made compatible with sharejs.
>
> I took a brief look at
> https://github.com/josephg/ShareJS/wiki/Wire-Protocol and the
>
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Christian Ohler wrote:
> What are sequence numbers needed for? Do sharejs clients submit
> additional operations before the server has acknowledged the first
> rpc? Walkaround clients do not, each client has only one submitdelta
> rpc (one batch of ops) "in fligh
Oh dear. Two tabs - I didn't think of that. What was that quote - the
no plan survives contact with web browsers?
How do multiple tabs interact with local storage? How would a second
tab differentiate between ops in localstorage because the browser
crashed, vs ops in localstorage because an editor
+1 if you think its ready Ali.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Angus Turner wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks
> Angus Turner
> angusisf...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Ali Lown wrote:
>
>> Lets try again with this then...
>>
>> Wave 0.4 RC3 is available for review here:
>> https://people
The biggest benefit to a P2P-capable system is federation. Currently,
the wave federation algorithms create a distributed tree of servers,
and they're vulnerable to netsplits if one of the root servers goes
offline. Maintaining that tree is complex and unnecessary - there are
better algorithms we c
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Michael MacFadden
wrote:
> There are pros and cons to doing OT in a client-server or P2P manner.
> Googles view was that if you have potentially hundreds or thousands of
> collaborators, then in a P2P mode you wind up with state vectors, vector
> clocks, or context
hink that this has some benefit over pure P2P and pure
> client server architectures.
>
> ~Michael
>
> On 6/11/13 6:44 PM, "Joseph Gentle" wrote:
>
>>The biggest benefit to a P2P-capable system is federation. Currently,
>>the wave federation algorithms create a
s far as hashing, how would that help?
>
> ~Michael
>
> On 6/11/13 6:50 PM, "Joseph Gentle" wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Michael MacFadden
>> wrote:
>>> There are pros and cons to doing OT in a client-server or P2P manner.
>>> Google
w the wiki instructions and make my server
> federable, it's still yet another barrier that some people (like
> myself-a-year-ago) may not want or have the will to go through.
We might be able to use self-signed certs + key pinning + TACK, but
its a bit of a diversion here.
>
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak)
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>> Secondly, we won't tie your identity to the IP of the computer you're
>> on - your identity doesn't change when you move between devices
Good question.
Personally, I'd like to fix federation so its simpler, more reliable
and easier to deploy. And if we move to a proper P2P OT system, we can
get some neat new properties out of our system while we're at it.
I also think wave in a box should allow federation of multiple
different OT
I heard a story once from some developer attending a java conference.
The theme was how to solve the challenges that Java faces in the next
decade - and basically everyone was talking about how to make
development tools scale up to work with codebases which were millions
of lines long. How do we m
omplexity in the right spot.
>
> I am all for a more generic OT engine. The vast amount of literature on
> OT would support this architecture.
>
> ~Michael
>
> On 6/11/13 10:38 PM, "Joseph Gentle" wrote:
>
>>I heard a story once from some developer attend
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Dave wrote:
> Protobuffs in XMPP might not be the most elegant wire protocol, but they're
> both proven, solid messaging technologies. I can see appeal in replacing
> them, but for my money the path of least resistance would be to improve
> these implementations.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Dave wrote:
> On 11/06/13 22:44, Michael MacFadden wrote:
>>
>> Joseph,
>>
>> I agree. I took wave's concept and completely redid the code base. I
>> removed all of the wave conversation model operations and concepts and
>> replaced them with ones that just oper
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Dave wrote:
>> Protobuffs in XMPP might not be the most elegant wire protocol, but they're
>> both proven, solid messaging technologies. I can see appeal in replacing
>> them, bu
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak)
wrote:
> I agree with you on this. The other day I was about to add half a dozen new
> settings to the config files (for the email-wave bot). I thought it would
> take 5 minutes max, something like adding lines like this:
>
> value = s
Regardless of where the code goes, as I've said we should redesign the
OT system using proper TP2 types. This will enable us to build a
working federation protocol thats better anyway. I also think we
should separate out the OT types into a library, and make the system
capable of hosting different
Did you meet Torben at the wave summit? He took me through his way to
mitigate this problem. He describes it briefly here:
https://github.com/josephg/lightwave/blob/master/ot/README
In short, give every operation a unique hash. Each peer stores its own
(transformed) history list.
When two peers s
allows to re-use the
> same OT code both on the server and client. Moreover, I think that the
> client is not that important, we just need to provide better Robot API and
> let people create their own clients.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>
>>
i Z wrote:
>
>> I actually like GWT in general and the fact that it allows to re-use the
>> same OT code both on the server and client. Moreover, I think that the
>> client is not that important, we just need to provide better Robot API and
>> let people create their own
ak)
wrote:
> This sounds *awfully* similar to darcs patch theory. If the concepts are
> the same, then all the theory is already worked out if i'm not mistaken.
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Understanding_Darcs/Patch_theory#Merging_is_symmetric
> http://darcs.net/Theory
>
>
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak)
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>
>> Yep. Similar but better, because using OT we can guarantee eventual
>> consistency we don't need conflict markers and there's a bunch
I mean types which have a TP2-capable transform & purge functions.
Same stuff I was talking about in the other thread.
-J
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Michael MacFadden
wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> Can you clarify what you mean by "proper TP2 types".
>
> ~Michael
&g
mance, readily adapted for networked and offline mobile use and
>> easy to use for developing a wide array of powerful UIs and
>> applets/gadgets. I think that we have the core of a community that can help
>> us to move in that direction. I will weigh in on the "how" from time
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak)
wrote:
> My assumption was that conflicts were simply mathematically inevitable in a
> DVCSs, that's why your mention about lack of conflict markers sparked my
> interest... you mention conflicts like they can be optional? If so, are
>
ffers after merges?
>
> I suppose there could be other OT algorithms that don't use a "character"
> primitive, but rather an "xml tag" primitive, a json item, a "pixel", or
> anything else, right?
>
> (sorry for only contributing with questions... :-)
&
should be, but most agree on the concept.
>
> For example in wave they tried to create a map like collection that OT
> could operate on. Essentially though that had to implement the map as if
> its underlying model was a bunch of XMLish type tags. This we very
> convoluted.
>
>
Awesome :D
As for the GWT vs JS thing, I think we could argue all day but we'll
be mostly trying to justify our personal preferences for languages. I
don't like java, but I can definitely understand why some people don't
like javascript. (And I do miss my IDEs).
I don't think we should bully cont
operations to
> modify the conversation model
>
> Potentially.
>
>
> On 6/12/13 10:55 PM, "Joseph Gentle" wrote:
>
>>Really?
>>
>>My method for ShareJS was to simply have a JSON OT type and a
>>plaintext OT type. I'd like to add a rich text
I love it. Well said, and I totally agree. (Although I still like
having ShareJS on Github.)
-J
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Michael MacFadden
wrote:
> Wavers,
>
> It has become clear that there a MANY more people are interested in Wave
> that we had previously thought. There recent explo
It should - the algorithms are the same. Whether or not it actually
works is another matter. I keep accidentally breaking ShareJS's
reconnection logic through tiny oversights.
-J
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro
wrote:
> I am pretty sure that was what was happening. I k
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Dave wrote:
> On 6/12/13 6:22 PM, "Joseph Gentle" wrote:
>>
>> Regardless of where the code goes, as I've said we should redesign the OT
>> system using proper TP2 types. This will enable us to build a working
>> feder
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Patrick Coleman wrote:
> Fascinating thread, it's been great to follow the huge increase in interest
> of late :)
Nice to see you Pat! How're things?
> One question that I'm hoping might get answered before people rewrite
> anything:
> is there a plan for keeping
hem, remove them and modify them like anything else. You can
> manage annotations as another structure within the blip model. There is
> no reason why you can interface them though a JSON Style operations
> structure.
>
> ~Michael
>
> On 6/13/13 12:11 AM, "Joseph Gentle&q
ne of the founders of OT says almost every time I see him,
> "Let OT focus on what it is good at, and let it ignore everything else".
>
> ~Michael
>
> On 6/13/13 7:54 PM, "Joseph Gentle" wrote:
>
>>So you're imagining storing rich text like this?
&
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:46 PM, John Blossom wrote:
>> Christian,
>>
>> I leave it up to the developers to make those decisions. Whatever tools
>> help the project to move forward best for both the immediate efforts and
>> the long-t
Following from Michael MacFadden's suggestion to put related
(hopefully integrated) technologies into the same wave repository, I
propose adding an experiments directory into SVN. (Do we vote on this
or something, or should I just do it?)
Experimental code should be exempt from code review, althou
xing iirc & apparently not currently used snapshot code.
You can run this to see what I'm a file author on, although apparently
I'm still gen...@google.com sometimes.
$ grep 'author.*Joseph Gentle' -ri . | grep -v svn
I probably just never got around to submitting an ICLA
647A-40F0-A28C-0547B75D%40gmail.com%3E
>
> Ali Lown (Committer - Implicit as release manager)
>
> Angus Turner
> Joseph Gentle
> Pratik Paranjape
> Dave Ball
>
> +0: 2
> Upayavira (IPMC - "[...] Therefore I am voting +0 to say I am
> supportive of the effort that has
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Dave 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 tha
Sounds interesting. Where is this going to be held? It might be
interesting for a few people on this list, too.
-J
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Michael MacFadden
wrote:
> After hooking up with Google for wave. I have been the lead architect for an
> OT framework much like the real time driv
ct, we just need to get the
>> dialogue.rolling, it seems. We can always have more. Say Weds or Thursday
>> around 1700 UT+1? Pick a number. John
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> John Blossom
>>
>> email: jblos...@gmail.com
>> phone: 203.293.8511
>&
Experiments directory added in
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/experiments/ .
-J
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
> Following from Michael MacFadden's suggestion to put related
> (hopefully integrated) technologies into the same wave repository,
I've given half a dozen talks about ShareJS over the last 3 years, and
almost every time I give a talk, someone asks me whether you can use
ShareJS in a peer-to-peer way instead of just through a single server.
"You say it works like subversion. Can it work like Git?"
"Can you have a document shar
gt; by using git-svn - it works fine for me.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>>
>> > I've given half a dozen talks about ShareJS over the last 3 years, and
>> > almost every time I give a talk, someone asks me whether you can use
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Michael MacFadden
wrote:
>>To start, I want to build a generic P2P OT container. This is a simple
>>wrapper that contains a set of OT documents and defines a network
>>protocol for keeping them in sync. The container needs to be able to
>>talk to another instance o
I can imagine dozens of different network configurations that the
system might need to support[1]. But the OT container shouldn't have
to care about the network topology.
Instead the application should give the OT container a stream. The
container is responsible for sending & receiving messages th
that you outline might not wind
> up being either-or - perhaps different environments offer one or more
> handshake options.
>
> I'd love to sit in on this thread and glad to participate as needed and to
> work out documents etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Johm
> On Jun 19, 20
Sounds good to me. [+1]
Welcome :)
-Joseph
On 21 Jun 2013 12:06, "Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak)"
wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Alain Levesque
> wrote:
>
> > As wavers I say yes also. Don't know if my answer as some value;-)
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Yuri Z
Yes definitely - but that doesn't mean operations must be invertible,
which is what I was saying in IRC.
Eg, if we use tombstones a document could say:
"Hello world"
Then I delete 'world', leaving:
"Hello ." (dots for tombstones)
If I undo that change, I can't delete the tombstone characte
^_^
Cheers guys
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Yuri Z wrote:
> Congrats Joseph!
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Michael MacFadden <
> michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wavers,
>>
>> Please welcome Joseph Gentle as an active Apache Wave
Thats my view too:
15:03 < josephg> So, I'm just responding as I read - stenyak: For now,
I want wave to be p2p in the same way that git is p2p.
15:04 < josephg> that is, I want the core algorithms & data structures
to use P2P-capable algorithms, and probably the wave servers will do
p2p between t
These are the steps I think we should take around the new federation protocol:
1a. Figure out a p2p-capable OT algorithm & design that we're all
happy with. Make an in-process proof-of-implementation & randomizer to
convince myself its correct & not horrendously slow.
1b. Decide what data structu
; people become gate keepers and people would not need permission from the
> committee.
>
> They are just volunteers who agree to help move the conversation along.
>
> Does this make more sense?
>
> ~Michael
>
>
>
> On 6/23/13 4:54 PM, "Joseph Gentle" wrote:
>
I want to start the discussion around what OT algorithms to use. This
is going to get technical. This is not a bug. Please ask simple but
tangential questions (like how does wave's current crypto system
work?) in a new thread instead of this one.
Requirements:
- Arbitrary peers can syncronize data
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
>> 1. CRDTs (like Logoot[1])
>> 2. 'Classical' OT using vector clocks for versioning.
>> 3. The OT system [...] similar to classical OT, except using git style
>> version hashes.
>
> A quick look at Logoot's paper says that deletion is not generally
(s). I think it will get
> buried here. I think we might need individual pages on each protocol idea.
> And the a pro/con page where we compare them based on discussions on the list.
>
> ~Michael
>
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>
>> I want to start t
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Torben Weis wrote:
> 2013/6/25 Joseph Gentle
>
>>
>> >> When peers connect, they send each other missing ops. Figuring out
>> >> which ops are missing can be surprisingly tricky - but we'll figure
>> >> tha
rote:
>
>> Ingenious, Torben, certainly adds efficiency. John
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Torben Weis wrote:
>>
>>> 2013/6/25 Joseph Gentle
>>>
>>> >
>>> > >> When peers connect, they send each other missing
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/12680/#review23332
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Joseph Gentle
On July 17, 2013, 3:20 p.m
Yeah - (as always) I figure we should first make a mess then decide on
some structure only when we have problems.
-J
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
> This looks good to me, so we have some consistency in naming and
> locating stuff in the repo.
>
> It is unclear how experiments
icateManagerImplTest.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/12678/#comment47223>
and ...
- Joseph Gentle
On July 17, 2013, 3:20 p.m., Ali Lown wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To rep
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Ali Lown wrote:
>> On July 18, 2013, 3:13 p.m., Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado wrote:
>> > From my point of view the File Persistence still have bugs that we have
>> > not addressed and aren't present in Memory Store, so I usually compare the
>> > implementations to try
On 17 July 2013 15:33, John Blossom wrote:
> >>>>>>> Great, Michael, find a date that works for you that seems to match
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>> others' interests and I will be glad to arrange for this. We can
> >>>>>> have
Speaking of which, I'd like to start actually using wave in this
community. We should put a brief agenda in a wave somewhere for this
meeting, and annotate it with things discussed. We can copy it out
afterwards for the mailing list, but in general I want to use this
amazing tool we're making.
-J
ve
>>> >>>>>>> participation.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> All the best,
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> John Blossom
>>> >>>>>>>
>&g
To be clear, our principle aim is to make a wave platform. Dogfooding
our own software is only a major step if we call it one - I don't
think we should move discussion there *yet*, but thats an obvious
goal. Git isn't hosted in a subversion repository after all.
-J
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:46 A
runo Gonzalez, Jérémy Naegel, and Joseph
> Gentle for their active participation in our first Apache Wave team
> hangout. We also saw Christian Grobmeier trying to connect briefly, and
> some others are listed as having went, but that was the core group online.
> You can view the event at: htt
that to be fully established yet.
> I think usefull mobile clients could be made even with a small subset
> of wfp abilities - its not like everything needs to be implemented for
> work to start.
>
> On 31 July 2013 22:11, Joseph Gentle wrote:
>> I still want a technical de
tldr; I need some volunteers to collaboratively edit a document
together, so we can systematically evaluate algorithmic performance.
So recently Michael linked me to a paper[1] which evaluates a bunch of
different concurrency algorithms on speed & memory usage. They got a
bunch of students to col
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM, John Blossom wrote:
>
>> Would love to help!
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> John Blossom
>>
>> email: jblos...@gmail.com
>> phone: 203.293.8511
>> google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom
>>
>>
&g
Hi guys.
Sorry for the late notice - I'm postponing this until next weekend
because things have come up.
I'll email closer to the date.
Thanks
Joseph
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
> tldr; I need some volunteers to collaboratively edit a document
> tog
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> Am 12.09.13 20:35, schrieb Ali Lown:
>> It seems nobody else is able to give feedback at this point.
>> Christian raised some things that are worth doing, so I may as well
>> start again with RC5, which I will push up in a few weeks ti
I totally agree.
- We should move to github
- I agree that there isn't enough work devoted to WIAB to keep it
alive in its current state
- We should move discussion to WIAB, once its ready for that
I'd love to throw more time and energy into WIAB - I really would, but
the reality is that I'm work
We should keep a mailing list (on incubator.apache.org or on google
groups) until we can host these discussions in wave itself. We can
arrange google hangouts just as easily.
-J
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Evan Hughes wrote:
> By moving to github will the community there be able to communic
I still really want to make the wave platform we've been talking about
for awhile. I just don't have any time because I need to work to eat.
So I've spent the last month thinking about running a kickstarter to
fund the work. Christian's email was really timely.
I want arbitrary JSON documents, o
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
