Hello Everyone,
Are there any details available about the wave documents of types other than
conversation manifest
and blips? Or some collection of published papers, white papers giving
pointers in this general
direction of wave model..like document types, annotations etc. ?
Thanks.
t; Here are two links for you:
> http://wave-protocol.googlecode.com/hg/spec/conversation/convspec.html
>
> <http://wave-protocol.googlecode.com/hg/spec/conversation/convspec.html>
> http://www.waveprotocol.org/protocol/design-proposals
>
> -Dan
>
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 a
Hello Folks.
I have a requirement where a wave document needs to be checked for a number
of semantic rules and
preconditions, and modified..by adding annotations or changing the data, so
user knows. The mechanism needed
is quite simply like spelly or linky. I could not find anything about how
agent
Ahh..Thanks Yuri! I was talking about WIAB.
That solves my problem.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Yuri Z wrote:
> Hi.
> Regrading your question - do you talk about Google Wave or Wave in a Box?
> There are no restrictions on robot domains in WIAB.
>
>
> 2011/3/28 Pratik Par
Compiles fine with Sun/Oracle JDK 1.6.0_24 on Windows.
- Pratik.
2011/3/31 David Hearnden
> Hi Obed,
>
> It compiles fine with Sun/Oracle JDK 1.6.0_24 on Mac, and OpenJDK on Linux.
>
> Are you able to upgrade to a more recent version of Java? If not, I can
> take a look at reducing the strictn
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong...
The editor does not handle all user events.The use a hybrid model.
There are things that are taken out by watching changes in DOM (e.g.
typing, pasting..).
Extractors are used for this...like Typing Extractor. These changes are
then applied to
un
@Willie I don't think an all pervasive event bus exists in the code, if
that is what you are looking for. Someone will correct me if
following explanation is wrong.
The the keystrokes are first seen by the Editor (see EditorImpl), they are
categorized between commands for annotations
and text inpu
mit talks.
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WAVE/Wave+Summit+Talks
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Pratik Paranjape <
> pratikparanj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> @Willie I don't think an all pervasive event bus exists in the code, if
>> th
adoption report can be of great
help. The current contributors have been doing a great job of getting the
client-server running, taking over from somewhat not-ready source the
project received.
/** End Opinions **/
Regards,
Pratik Paranjape.
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote
s moment.
Wishing best for Wave.
Pratik Paranjape
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:10 AM, John Blossom wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Thanks, I think that we're on the same page. No doubt that Wave federation
> holds out tremendous promise. Hopefully the Apache community can move
> towards decidi
p.s. I was able to setup (server-to-server) federation long back, I think a
few months after Google IO10, it was not easy, but it had worked. Back then
there were quite a few guides available.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Pratik Paranjape wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> It was good t
all about - success. Sometimes that means that
> everyone, including me, puts their own investment aside and tries to do the
> right thing. That's a part of the ASF spirit, I know. But I don't want
> success by accident. I want success by design.
>
> So yes, we need co
)
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Pratik Paranjape <
pratikparanj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't been actively involved in development of the project, but I have
> studied it extensively in past, including the code, and I enjoy
> answering new people coming to wave wh
+1 Michael. I think maven will turn out to be a big necessity in long run.
We are going to have many modules eventually,
starting on right track can be helpful. Also from marketing standpoint, its
fashionable to provide just the artifact list to get going.
I am not good with maven goals, but may b
There can be a workaround at some point though.
We can have discussions going on a Wave server for Wave project and make
sure that all messages are forwarded to this
mailing list as well. If someone responds here, we can have wave pull it
out and merge into wave discussion. Interesting
use case an
where it
is supposed to be placed.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013, at 08:28 PM, Pratik Paranjape wrote:
> > There can be a workaround at some point though.
> >
> > We can have discussions going on a Wave server for Wave pro
Got it to compile and run on Ubuntu 12.10/Oracle JDK7 with following fixes:
1) Changed non-static references to a static method into references by
Class name
2) Relaxed visibility of members from private to protected in
AbstractTreeNode.java
3) Removed -Werror flag from build-macros.xml
4) There we
nly had an issue (with source as 1.7, because 1.6 works
> nicely) that I fixed with
> https://github.com/pires/wave/commit/34e44e1dfb0ac6e7820f4d4b71fe05837efed960
>
>
> On May 31, 2013, at 4:09 PM, Pratik Paranjape
> wrote:
>
> Got it to compile and run on Ubuntu 12.10/Oracl
+1 Upayavira and Bruno. Well said!
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <
sten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
> > Creating new mailing lists divides communities and should therefore be
> > done with caution.
> >
> > This commun
Joseph.
May be I am not getting it fully, I don't see how latency problem will be
resolved in the P2P architecture you mentioned. The editor and the compiler
are still remotely connected. Even if compiler has access to it's own OT
system which builds the source files for it on every new delta, deit
+1 for hybrid.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Pratik Paranjape <
pratikparanj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joseph.
> May be I am not getting it fully, I don't see how latency problem will be
> resolved in the P2P architecture you mentioned. The editor and the compiler
Question is: will we be able to sustain this enthusiasm long enough to
benefit from a clean slate? Code is in bad shape, agreed. There are better
options available today, agreed. But considering the scope, which is not
just OT, and but a whole platform to support services on top of
collaborative mo
haha, yes Ali. I was baffled to see so many layers of document model, for
really no practical advantage, only more confusion. Same with event
handling inside editor and IIRC ops model too. We should really be brave
and remove a bunch of unnecessary abstractions, and keep things simple.
That we shou
not sure we need to throw away all of the code. Rather perhaps we
> should just branch and slash and burn. I am sure there are parts that
> could be kept, but I think we would severely break / reorganize.
>
> On 6/12/13 11:52 AM, "Pratik Paranjape" wrote:
>
> >Q
Not sure where Apache stands on this, but a Github mirror, even if read
only, is likely to help to gain some visibility and possible contributions.
The ease of navigation and possibility of inspecting code without hassle
gets people interested. Big plus if we can accept pull requests there, but
I
+1
tested on Ubuntu 12.10.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Michael MacFadden <
michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Posting the message on the right thread this time hopefully.
>
> I did test the latest RC on OSX. I also looked through the licensing and
> the packaging.
>
> +1
>
> ~Michael
>
>
which I think should be our choice, there are good examples these days.
Servers can even register as service providers. XMPP is really not designed
for this application.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Yuri Z wrote:
> But without XMPP you would need to define your own discovery protocol.
>
>
>
XMPP is what making servers federate in current code Bruno. Setting up
prosody etc...
http://wave-protocol.googlecode.com/hg/spec/federation/wavespec.html
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <
sten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is XMPP involved in the connection of Mobile dev
Has anyone actually thought over how it will be possible for something like
wave to be P2P over HTTP? With security and data replication requirements?
I don't see it myself :) Is this a direction many of us are thinking
(technically) about?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Pratik Para
, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Pratik Paranjape wrote:
> Has anyone actually thought over how it will be possible for something
> like wave to be P2P over HTTP? With security and data replication
> requirements? I don't see it myself :) Is this a direction many of us are
> thinking (te
There is a way to interop though. This is how I am doing it currently: GWT
creates a message bus on EntryPoint. Through JSNI, attaches an object in
the window with subscribe(), unsubscribe(), publish() api. The object acts
as a bridge between the two sides. MessageBus really is in GWT, but there
is
I think the point is, we need to work to each others strengths. Joseph
loves to work on js, and has awesome sharejs experience. Some others like
GWT, and there is a bunch of old code. Having not a huge community to
choose from, at least for now, if we can tune into our passions and let
everyone do
Two points John, someone has to speak for GWT :)
GWT has its demerits (compilation time, monolithic output), but the 2
mentioned above are not among them.
1) GWT produces large output because that is the kind of projects it is
used for. No one uses GWT for average size website or general dom
manip
Very exciting! Are you thinking about sync between multiple nodes or just 2?
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Yuri Z wrote:
> Sounds fantastic, especially when it comes from you Joseph.
> Just a side note regarding SVN-Git issue - it is possible to combine both
> by using git-svn - it works fi
nts.
>
> And Yuri - I wasn't really talking about svn or git ;)
>
> What are your thoughts on the wavelet data model decision?
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Pratik Paranjape
> wrote:
> > Very exciting! Are you thinking about sync between multiple nodes or
&
o really since the Internet is
> a give). How do messages get between clients, and where does the OT
> happen.
>
> These can be decided partially independent of one another.
>
> ~Michael
>
> On 6/19/13 2:04 PM, "Pratik Paranjape" wrote:
>
> >( I think this
Awesome Bruno! Thanks for this.
Good to see we are not totally ignoring networking, that would have been
naive, it will be Elephant in the room.
Good discussion there, will have to think over all points in detail, but on
first pass:
>> *Summary of discussions:*
>> **
>> *1) U
bove approach.
>
> ~Michael
>
> On Jun 21, 2013, at 6:49 AM, Pratik Paranjape
> wrote:
>
> > Awesome Bruno! Thanks for this.
> >
> > Good to see we are not totally ignoring networking, that would have been
> > naive, it will be Elephant in the room.
> >
+1
And I thought you were already a mentor for Wave! I am sure it wasn't only
me.
Welcome.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
> Sounds good to me. [+1]
>
> Welcome :)
>
> -Joseph
> On 21 Jun 2013 12:06, "Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak)"
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Fri, J
Cheers Joseph! Great to have you.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Joseph Gentle wrote:
> ^_^
>
> 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:
> >
>
Hello All.
I think its important to consider whether staying at Apache is even a
choice at this juncture. This is the second time Christian has raised
question about incubator being a suitable place for Wave. It appears that
Apache expects given amount of activity/progress for a project to be
cons
How (or for how long) is this a choice? If WAIB does not show improvement
in the amount of activity, a mentor will be asking same question
again...whether Wave is a suitable project for the incubator. The
discussion started because Christian raised this question in the first
place. Based on past
42 matches
Mail list logo
