Hi Torben, It seems for what you say you want to keep Wave isolated from other possible technologies and implementations, what IMHO is against the nature of this project and the potential for Wave technology
IMHO, Wave is just a bunch of Specs anyone must be able to implement using any technology, it has become an Apache Project, Open Source, and is not longer a Google Project, so it will move forward by individuals, (like people from google present here and others), and others entities, like in my case a company, contributing to this technology to grow, that for what I know is quite usual in Open Source projects, isn't it? So keeping this in mind any reference code using any technology for Servers, Clients, APIs or any other piece of code, must be welcome just now in the project and not just the initial implementation provided from Google Wave. Probably, code provided from Google will be the reference or core implementation growing faster and having the latest specs implemented for maybe a long time.. Againg IMHO behaving in this way you are limiting so much Wave possibilites to have a nice start and be more broadly adopted. In the end you can give to the project more chances to survive, grow, get more adepts and spread around the community and the computing world in general... What will happen if you found in the mid-term you get more developers interested to join project using c# platform than current Java implementation and c# is the technology pushing forward Wave? it could happen or not but is one possibility you cannot ignore... Of course if you 'close down' Wave technology to a 'official branch' of Java code this never will happen, and probably you will miss sponsorship from many companies and a lot of interest from many people to be able to create use cases and push the technology... Trust me, technology is not important, just Specs are important and any Server, or Client, API, partial implementation or anything Stable compliant with Specs must be welcome from my point of view, Wave Community will grow with this kind of contributions... Tell me you want to have just one Reference code on Apache Wave project and you, for some reason, want the one provided by Google to be the unique and alone forever, what I have nothing against, if all people in the project agree, but please, do not tell me 'you are going to encourage other implementations' for Wave technology as ANY implementation will be valid as long as stick to Specs and works and must be welcome to create 'momentum' to the Wave technology. And If I can be part of this project, and someone, anybody, is trying to contribute with a large codebase from a commercial product making it available as open source I would appreciate his effort and be completely happy and interested on this to happen and I'll accept his contribution, probably on the main trunk and encourage others to push, if 6 months later I realize it was not a good idea, or there is nobody supporting that branch, myself will propose to remove it from the offical project site. Honestly I really don't know what is the state for your 'lightweight' project or how broad it is, or what capabilities it has, so I can't know if it is comparable with a commercial-quality level product like wave-vs and its 120 KLOC Are you aware you are 'refusing' thousand of lines of code from a real commercial product designed and implemented by professional Software Architects? (I'm not saying current or future available implementation for WiaB or other piece of code does not have a similar quality! because I know it has this quality!) As far as I know, there is only a few commercial projects using Wave Technology. But can you tell to me how many of them are already released, working, growing and with a stable and growing base of real clients? We have the possibility to continue developing this technology isolated from this Wave Project as we have our own implementation for everything (server, client, apis, protocols....), even so, we'd love to continue sticking to the Specs created by this group and contribute to it as much as possible... I'd love to listen your opinion about this as well as the opinions from people in the Project... PS: I just wanted to share my thoughs with people in this project and to show we have a real interest and power to participate, was not my intention to complain or to push against somebody, I'm not native english speaker and I know my English limitations can show other attiture for what I say that is not really intentionally so my apologies if someone feel this email goes in the wrong way because evreything is really 'in my humble opinion'... Regards Jesus Salas wave-vs.net CTO On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Torben Weis <torben.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jesus, > > my understanding of the move to Apache was that this is mainly a WiaB > thing. > Thus, Apache Wave (formerly WiaB) is one implementation of the Wave > standards. > > We encourage other implementations of Wave technology (for example my > lightwave project > is written in Go). However, my understanding is that these implementations > will not > sail under the Apache Wave banner. > > On the long run we even plan to spin off the specs to make the point that > the specs are > independent and Apache Wave is "just" one implementation of these specs > (albeit the > most complete and standards compliant one). > > To make wave a success we need multiple implementations, Apache Wave being > one of them. > If you want to start a C# wave server (which sounds like a great idea to > me), put the code up on > code.google.com or github and inform this list. Once we have moved our web > pages we need to keep track of other wave implementations and link to them > from the Apache Wave web sites. > > Greetings > Torben > > 2010/12/12 Jesus Salas <jesus.sa...@gmail.com> > > > Hi Soren, > > > > I was not thinking to contribute on main Java trunk, (as I didn't have > > enough Java Knowledge), but to begin contribute to a c#.Net > implementation > > for wave. > > > > I can and I really want to 'open source' pieces of wave-vs.net, (Several > > KLOC), and provide this to make wave technology as broadest as possible. > > > > Even if main implementation work continues to be Java technology I think > a > > potential c# implementation as a "Port" or "Contrib", (whatever you think > > is > > the best), is possible and desirable to make Wave stronger. > > > > As I never have work on an Apache or Open Source Project I'm blind on how > > it > > is structured or how it works, so you will need to guide me most of the > > time > > on how to do things until I learn a bit... > > > > I have to ask if you think is a good idea to open this .Net branch for > Wave > > Technology sponsored inside the Apache Incubator Project. > > > > jesus > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Soren Lassen <so...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jesus, > > > > > > You don't need an account to contribute. You can check out the the > > > source code (see > > > http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/source/checkout, > > > http://www.waveprotocol.org/wave-in-a-box/setting-up) and then when > > > you have added your code or made the code changes you want to > > > contribute, send it for code review: > > > http://www.waveprotocol.org/code/submitting-code > > > > > > Once someone has reviewed your code and you've made the changes that > > > you and the reviewer(s) agree on, a committer will apply your code to > > > the repository for you. You will need to sign a contributor agreement > > > first: > > > http://www.waveprotocol.org/code/committers > > > > > > At least that's how it works right now. There will be changes to the > > > way we work with the code repository and code reviews as we switch to > > > Apache's tools and processes in the near future. > > > > > > Soren > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Andrus Adamchik > > > <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: > > > > To become a committer you need to start contributing to the project. > > E.g. > > > read these messages earlier in this thread: > > > > > > > > http://bit.ly/eeEfjn > > > > > > > > Andrus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jesus Salas wrote: > > > > > > > >> I mean ... for a commiter account... > > > >> > > > >> jesus > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Jesus Salas < > jesus.sa...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Sorry me, > > > >>> > > > >>> How to submit or a Committer account? > > > >>> > > > >>> thank you > > > >>> > > > >>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Andrus Adamchik < > > > >>> and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Yes, I will handle it. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It was my intent to attempt to gather information on as many > > committer > > > >>>> accounts as we can before sending infra request, but yes I fully > > > expected > > > >>>> that out of this long list not everybody will be able to reply > > > immediately. > > > >>>> So my plan now is to wait a couple more days, then check with > > > secret...@about the CLA's (none of the last week CLA's are recorded > > yet), > > > and then > > > >>>> send a request to infra based on the information collected so far. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Andrus > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Dec 11, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Upayavira wrote: > > > >>>>> I agree, we should get some done soon. Are there any more we can > > get > > > >>>>> done quickly? If Andrus isn't able to send in an account request > > over > > > >>>>> the next few days, I'll happily do it. Andrus? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Upayavira > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:55 -0800, "Michael MacFadden" > > > >>>>> <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> What is the timeline for getting the accounts created. Again no > > > rush, > > > >>>>>> just curious. Appreciate your mentorship / help. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Michael > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Dec 8, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Soren Lassen wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> a) done > > > >>>>>>> b) soren or sorenlassen > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> thanks > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Andrus Adamchik < > > > >>>> and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Michael MacFadden wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> -- Committer Accounts -- > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I assume for those on the initial committer list who don't > > > already > > > >>>> have them, we will need to get accounts. Who coordinates that? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I will send the request to create committer accounts. We need > to > > > do > > > >>>> some preparation before that though. So below is a list of > > committers > > > from > > > >>>> the proposal, excluding those who already have an account @apache. > I > > > suggest > > > >>>> the following procedure: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> (a) everybody on the list please print, sign and submit a > > > Contributor > > > >>>> License Agreement [2], except for those who already did; > > > >>>>>>>> (b) reply to this message (or to me privately to prevent list > > > noise) > > > >>>> with 2 versions of a UNIX account name that you would like (this > > will > > > also > > > >>>> be your email at apache dot org). Use [1] to check whether any > given > > > name is > > > >>>> taken. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Once we have all CLA's on file, I'll submit a single request > to > > > infra > > > >>>> to create accounts. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Alex North > > > >>>>>>>> Anthony Watkins (there's a CLA for 'Anthony LaMarr Watkins' on > > > file) > > > >>>>>>>> Christian Ohler > > > >>>>>>>> Dan Danilatos > > > >>>>>>>> David Hearnden > > > >>>>>>>> David Wang > > > >>>>>>>> James Purser > > > >>>>>>>> Joseph Gentle > > > >>>>>>>> Lennard de Rijk > > > >>>>>>>> Michael MacFadden (there's a CLA on file) > > > >>>>>>>> Soren Lassen > > > >>>>>>>> Tad Glines (there's a CLA on file) > > > >>>>>>>> Torben Weis > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> [1] http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html > > > >>>>>>>> [2] http://apache.org/licenses/ > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>>>> Andrus > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------- > Prof. Torben Weis > Universitaet Duisburg-Essen > torben.w...@gmail.com >
