Disclaimer: The following is just my personal opinion. As Chris pointed out, the confusion was to be expected.
However, the alternative would not be much better currently. We would have two mailing lists, one for Apache Wave (WiaB) and one for wave in general. New developers will find this quite confusing. Right now we have one place to go to exchange opinions and ideas about wave: The Apache Wave mailing list (wave-dev). The result is that the mailing list has a broader scope than the code base. This means that things which are considered cool on the list (i.e. other wave servers, etc.) are not considered for inclusion in the Apache Wave code base. Which in turn can lead to situations where developers are disappointed because their code will not become part of Apache Wave. On the long run we must therefore split this mailing list. Right now the message volume is comparably small and splitting the community right now might hurt more than it helps. At the very moment where WiaB developers ask why there is so much wave-vs, lightwave, pygowave, XYZwave discussion on the list, we have found the right moment to split. A note about what to include in the Apache Wave code base and what not to include. In my long ago KDE times we included every piece of code that used KDE stuff into the KDE repository. In the beginning this was cool because the size of the project grows very fast which signals momentum and activity. Eventually, releases become more and more difficult because the entire code base must converge against a stable build at the same time. Factoring out large chunks of code later is a hard task. We must find means of collaborating with commercial and open source wave efforts outside of Apache Wave. Open Source code which is not labeled "Apache Wave" must not be seen as second class wave code. This is difficult because developers feel more proud when they manage to include their stuff in this famous Apache project. The difficulty is to say "no" or "not yet" without discouraging new developers. When should we include large chunks of new code in the code base? Example: Should C++/C#/Go/Python client-libraries be part of Apache Wave? In my opinion this should depend on several criteria a) It does not duplicate efforts in Apache Wave b) It is directly related to Apache Wave and is a nice supplement to the current code base c) The to-be-submitted-code is already actively maintained and the developers have shown that they are willing and able to maintain it further d) The Apache Wave developers feel that they can maintain the new code even if some key developer may drop out later So the answer regarding the client libraries is: It depends. It depends on the community around this new code (i.e. criteria c) and d) ) Again, this is just my personal opinion. It is at best a suggestion for management policies. Greetings Torben 2010/12/13 Chris Harvey <ckhar...@gmail.com> > Seems to me we are (already) seeing "WIAB" verses "Wave" confusion > starting. > > This is what I feared when we were discussing whether the specs should be > part of Apache. As Torben pointed out, "Apache Wave" is really "Apache > WIAB". > > The specs should stay as waveprotocol.org. Those interested (in > particular) > in wave server development would be part of a community that develops ideas > around the specs. > > "Apache WIAB" should then follow the specs (if WIAB is indeed to be seen as > a "Reference Implementation"). > > There should also be a recognition that the so-called specs are effectively > nothing of the sort. They are a good, yet disconnected, out-of-date, at > times confusing, set of white papers that need considerably more work > before > other server developers can get really stuck-in. > > = 2c > > -- > Chris > iotawave.org > Singapore >
