I was going to write almost exactly the same email and decided not to. I found wave and wanted to use it, but it's dependence on the GWT and how intertwined the Client and Server were made it very difficult for me to understand and I moved to share.js because I could more easily comprehend it's inner workings and could build my client around it.
> > Ideally two projects and a documented protocol would have been best. Much > > like how email severs and clients can be developed separately, and > > standards like pop3 and imap used to talk between them. This would have been ideal I feel. I've seen multiple people on this mailing list asking how to integrate with the server and there is never a good response. Jim On 03/14/2015 05:18 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: > I'll just sadly from my little lurker corner repeat what I have been saying > for 3 years or so now; > I wanted to work on a client, despite trying, I lacked the ability to > understand the server side code. > > There was never a clear separation of client and sever that I feel would > have allowed less skilled coders like me to contribute. I was frustrated > when I saw GWT/ GUI issues on the web client being posted at times to > fix...and I could have helped with that. But I couldn't, because the > bureaucracy of having the sever and client tied together made (for me) > trivial things rather hard. > My half-developed phone client remained dead since Googles time as well > because I couldn't figure out how to interface with the changes made to how > you should talk to the sever. I had at one point 3 people helping me on > that project, and with a client/sever protocol we could have all > contributed. > Ideally two projects and a documented protocol would have been best. Much > like how email severs and clients can be developed separately, and > standards like pop3 and imap used to talk between them. > > I fully acknowledge much of this is my own lack of skills, and with > everyone unpaid volunteers I cant expect anything. > But this is my hypothesis as to why Wave development wasn't as active as it > could have been. > > -Thomas Wrobel > arwave.org > > > > > > ~~~ > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > > On 14 March 2015 at 21:52, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > >> Wave has been incubating for some years now, and, unfortunately, has not >> shown a level of growth that, in my opinion, would suggest that it is >> likely to reach graduation from the Incubator. >> >> Unfortunately, I think it is time we accept that Wave is unlikely to >> reach graduation, and should retire. >> >> To explain what this means - as I understand it, the ASF repo would be >> marked read-only, and after a period of time, the lists disabled. >> >> The code would, however, remain open-source, and any person, or group of >> people would be free to fork the code and continue with it elsewhere, >> e.g. Github/Sourceforge/etc. >> >> In the end, this is a decision of the Incubator PMC, however I’d like to >> see whether anyone here has any thoughts to add before I put this to the >> wider Incubator community. >> >> Upayavira >> >> P.S. This came up on the incubator-general list as a part of a >> discussion on the Wave report >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
