Well, let me put it like this for my end; As soon as there is a open API that allows persistent, yet selectively-shared, information and works by federated servers (without merely sending a copy to each user like email), then I'll be making clients using it. I'll be making 3 clients probably. A basic text one to get to grips with the API. An Augmented Reeality focused one ( https://code.google.com/p/skywriter/ is waiting for a protocol - has been for years), and a map based gwt web one designed to use with it. https://code.google.com/p/skywriter/ has been my pet project basically killed due to Waves lack of progress, and me not having the skills or time to get the progress done in areas I need. Honestly, I had such success during the Google era it let me a bit heartbroken.
As for wave alternatives I have been shocked frankly that even things I thought were pretty well developed have rather bad support. Even non-persistent XMPP, a lot of the libraries are outdated or abandoned for years. The only things supported seem to be "run your own server and screw federation" solutions. Which I dont accept to be a solution for any open system like this. Theres still a big gap in the market for a wave protocol. Its just very hard to explain/prove it. ~~~ Thomas & Bertines online review show: http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) On 13 June 2014 03:30, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a lot on my plate but I am looking more seriously at crowdfunding > for Wave 3.0. The only way that I see Wave taking off is with clearly > segregated and secure APIs for mobile apps that interface with > apps-independent distributed waves. > > All the best, > > John Blossom > > email: jblos...@gmail.com > phone: 203.293.8511 > google+: google.com/+JohnBlossom > > > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If it is I'll be jumping for joy, but as far as I know its still pretty > > tied together. > > Compiling the server without GWT is the easy bit, separating the existing > > client from the sever code - or recreating enough to have your own client > > seamlessly communicate I don't think is very easy. I don't even think > > theres an up to date protocol documented anywhere.{/hopes to be wrong] > > > > > > ~~~ > > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > > > > > > On 2 May 2014 15:14, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > But is the app "segregated" enough now that you can still get the > > > functionality that one requires for concurrent edits, etc. > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > John Blossom > > > > > > email: jblos...@gmail.com > > > phone: 203.293.8511 > > > google+: google.com/+JohnBlossom > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, you don't have to compile the GWT. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Jim Keener <jimktra...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is there a way to build the wave server without any of the GWT > front > > > > > end? My end goal would be to use the Wave server over a websocket > > with > > > > > a custom (application-specific) front end. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
