Just like to mention we do actually have a strong interest in WiaB, as we hope to build a google-maps app ontop of it - literally like another tab to view any waves with geographical information. Theres little reason for us to build another web interface from scratch - yet alone another server.
For our Android apps and true "AR" views what we are aiming for it terms of user interface is naturally quite different and geo-location specific. But we still want to use standard WiaB (and compatible) servers as they emerge. We hope that we can store the data in such a way that people not in a AR specific wave client will still see the data in some legible format. So, in short, while we don't have the time or the knowledge to directly contribute code to WiaB, we are keeping a close eye on it :) But, that said, I also support having a separate list for the protocol. We often struggle quite a bit with getting connections and read/write data working between our clients and the wiab server, and it feels like polluting this list to ask questions about that sort of stuff here. Thanks, -Thomas Wrobel arwave.org ~~~~~~ Reviews of anything, by anyone; www.rateoholic.co.uk Please try out my new site and give feedback :) On 31 January 2011 12:18, Jérémy Naegel <[email protected]> wrote: > I can totally understand projects like Wave-VS or ARWave having little > interest in WiaB, as what they want to achieve using the Wave protocol is > totally diffrent from the "classical" Wave usages. > I'm concerned of loosing contributors *if/when* the split doesn't occur or > doesn't occur soon enough... > > I think having so different Wave Protocol utilizations is a > huge strength for the long-term expansion of the Protocol. > As the recent discussion about ProcessOne illustrated, > Protocol-only interested projects need a place to feel at home... > > If it suits Apache rules better, what about a wave-*protocol*@ > incubator.apache.org mailing list ? > Are the Apache mailing-list limited to dev / user / commits ? > > > 2011/1/31 Alex North <[email protected]> > >> Yes, for sure. For now I do believe it's important to have everyone talking >> in the one place, and our adoption by Apache requires that to be wave-dev, >> but I agree the group may become a home for protocol-only discussion >> if/when >> we make such a split. >> >> On 30 January 2011 14:54, Michael MacFadden <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > We may indeed want to open the wav protocol google group again after we >> get >> > organized around protocol and WiaB separation. >> > >> > >> > On Jan 19, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Alex North wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > I've flipped the moderation bit on the >> [email protected]. >> > > It's now obsolete (or at least dormant). Please carry on wave >> development >> > > discussion on the [email protected] mailing list. >> > > >> > > The [email protected] list remains active, >> and >> > > will do so until we move our code to Apache's SVN and code review >> tools. >> > > >> > > The archives will remain accessible online. In addition, it's possible >> > we'll >> > > resurrect this group at some point when protocol development is >> separated >> > > from WIAB application development. >> > > >> > > Alex >> > >> > >> >
