Oh, I misunderstood...but that is fantastic!
—Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro On 17 June 2013 10:37, 田传武 <i...@goodow.com> wrote: > I just re-implement Drive Realtime API using wave related open source > projects. > realtime-operation <https://github.com/goodow/realtime-operation> uses the > ot algorithm from Apache Wave > realtime-channel <https://github.com/goodow/realtime-channel> and > realtime-server <https://github.com/goodow/realtime-server> are repackaged > from Walkaround > realtime-model <https://github.com/goodow/realtime-model> is a java port > of > Google Drive Realtime Javascript API > > > 2013/6/17 Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro <zmy...@gmail.com> > > > You mean the code under-the-hood of the Drive Realtime API is the same > code > > that powers Walkaround? Or do you mean you are working on using the > > Realtime API to power something like Walkaround? > > > > > > —Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro > > > > > > On 17 June 2013 08:40, 田传武 <i...@goodow.com> wrote: > > > > > I implemented Google Drive Realtime API based on Walkaround. > > > See https://github.com/goodow/realtime > > > and http://realtimeplayground.goodow.com/ > > > > > > It supports android, javascript(using gwt-export) and objective-c(using > > > j2objc). > > > > > > > > > 2013/6/16 Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Dave <w...@glark.co.uk> 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 that other apps could hook in > > to. > > > > >> Second we would need to change the operations to be more generic > > than > > > > the > > > > >> current set that are tied to the wave conversation model. The > > current > > > OT > > > > >> model is not flexible enough to become a core OT framework for > other > > > > apps > > > > >> to use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > > > > Have you had a chance to look at the SLOB layer in google > walkaround > > > [1]? > > > > > > > > > > <quote> > > > > > Much of the walkaround code is not specific to Wave, but factored > out > > > as > > > > a > > > > > separate, more general collaboration layer that manages shared live > > > > objects. > > > > > These objects can be modified by multiple clients at the same time, > > > with > > > > > changes made by any client immediately broadcast to all others. The > > > Wave > > > > > application is built on top of this, but the live collaboration > layer > > > is > > > > > flexible enough to support other applications. > > > > > </quote> > > > > > > > > > > It's apache licensed, and took at least some insperation from > > ShareJS. > > > > > > > > It was sort of the other way around. ShareJS's OT architecture was > > > > inspired by hallway chats with Dan Danilatos. Walkaround was written > > > > at the same time as sharejs. Its all very incestuous. > > > > > > > > As I understand it, walkaround's architecture is similar to ShareJS > > > > except that out of the box walkaround only has support for wave's > > > > wavelet/blip ot model. > > > > > > > > -J > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://code.google.com/p/walkaround/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> One of the things that always struck me in Wave was that the > > > > conversation > > > > >> model used OT but that the gadget API did not. This is in part > > > because > > > > >> gadgets had their own data model which had nothing to do with > > > > >> conversations (lines, annotations, etc) which were not supported > > well > > > by > > > > >> Wave's OT. > > > > >> > > > > >> The google real time API is a step in that direction, but there > are > > a > > > > >> couple problems with it. 1) It is a javascript API rather than a > > > > service. > > > > >> 2) You are forced to use it's data types rather than your own, and > > 3) > > > > your > > > > >> data must be stored on Drive. > > > > >> > > > > >> I have seen two proprietary OT engines that seem to work well > acting > > > as > > > > a > > > > >> service and one open source one. If we are to grow, I think this > is > > > the > > > > >> direction the OT code needs to go in. > > > > >> > > > > >> I think Joseph and I (so far as I can tell) are probably the two > > most > > > > >> interested people in doing this. > > > > >> > > > > >> I think we need to develop mini communities within wave. Those > that > > > are > > > > >> focused on the OT / CC Stack, those that are focused on clients, > > those > > > > >> that are interested in federation, etc. If we can pair up some > > folks > > > > that > > > > >> are interested in each of these areas (and others), I think we can > > > make > > > > >> some progress. > > > > >> > > > > >> ~Michael > > > > >> > > > > >> On 6/15/13 8:25 PM, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Just a note - the rendering to static HTML is experimental and > > wasn't > > > > >>> actually submitted to official Apache Wave repo since there was > no > > > > >>> agreement on the way on how this should implemented right without > > > > >>> breaking > > > > >>> static bindings when compiling from GWT to Javascript. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Zachary ³Gamer_Z.² Yaro > > > > >>> <zmy...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> @Fleeky, Yuri actually added some > > > > >>>> code< > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/vega113/WaveInCloud/tree/master/src/org/waveprotocol/b > > > > >>>> ox/server/rpc/render > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> WIAB for static HTML rendering, so that could be a solution to > > your > > > > >>>> publishing problems. In addition, Google Wave, Rizzoma, and (I* > > > > *think) > > > > >>>> WIAB (with Yuri's code) support exporting to HTML or PDF. Is > that > > > > what > > > > >>>> you > > > > >>>> were asking for? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> @John, I definitely like the idea of being able to log into a > wave > > > > >>>> server > > > > >>>> from OpenOffice and edit waves through it, but I think we need a > > > > >>>> standardized wave client-server protocol first. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> ‹Zachary ³Gamer_Z.² Yaro > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On 15 June 2013 12:34, Fleeky Flanco <fle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> john, i was infact using wave as a google docs replacement for > a > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> while it > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> worked pretty good the only problem i had with it was that i > > > couldnt > > > > >>>>> 'publish' static updates to a front facing page to share with > > > people > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> who > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> didnt feel like registering on my wave server. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> an openoffice for wave would be extremely usefull, and could > have > > > an > > > > >>>>> extremely large impact imo. wave is also already very very > close > > to > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> having > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> this funcitonality. etherpad lite sortof already does this, > but i > > > > kept > > > > >>>>> going back to wave because it was actually more responsive, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> featurefull, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> and actually crashed less. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM, John Blossom < > > jblos...@gmail.com> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> I had the down-the-road thought just now that I wanted to put > > into > > > > >>>>>> circulation before I forgot about it. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> One of the challenges that we will face in developing open > > source > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Wave > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> that Google and others - but mostly Google - are out there > using > > > > >>>>>> operational transform technologies also. So far the Google > Drive > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Realtime > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> API hasn't had much impact, but it's being "demoed" > successfully > > > in > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Drive > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> apps like Docs and Presentations. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> The advantages of an open source Wave implementation are, of > > > course, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> that > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> people can own their own data and identity management without > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> having to > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> rely on a specific vendor's infrastructure. But the flip side > of > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> that > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> that you have to look carefully at infrastructure that > > integrates > > > OT > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> understand what you have to do similarly to showcase your > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> technologies. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> That brings me to OpenOffice. At some point it will be > > beneficial > > > to > > > > >>>>>> consider how the Wave API can enable apps in the OpenOffice > > suite > > > to > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> take > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> advantage of OT technologies in Wave and its other various > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> features. In > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> fact, it's not unthinkable that an OpenOffice for Wave variant > > > might > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> not > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> be > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> feasible at some point, maintaining a familiar office > automation > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> paradigm > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> as a user interface for those who relate to that sort of tool > > but > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> having > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> the power of Wave to drive collaborative document editing, > > > comments, > > > > >>>>>> embedded apps and so on, with Wave data structures underneath > > the > > > OO > > > > >>>>>> interface. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Just idle thoughts for now, but if we make good progress over > > the > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> next > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> several months, it's a sub-project that may help to attract > more > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> developers > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> to Wave technologies. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> All the best, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> John Blossom > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
