I agree that there's a huge opportunity for the right protocol and API, especially in mobile and non-Internet markets, but not exclusively. What we're left with right now is email as the only open and global store-and-forward federated communications protocol for document collaboration - the rest exists as APIs on private clouds of one sort or another. Nobody really gets to own their own data any more. If we create the right protocol/API and the right environment for selling apps, Wave can go far. But as long as we're just making old code work a bit better, nothing advances.
IMO, of course. All the best, John Blossom email: jblos...@gmail.com phone: 203.293.8511 google+: google.com/+JohnBlossom On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 non-persistent XMPP, a lot of the libraries are outdated or abandoned for 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
