I think it is helpful that the wave standard be maintained by an established organization like the Apache. Yes, other tools with wave-y features, such as Google Docs, Rizzoma, and Slack, exist, but one of the most exciting promises of Wave was the open protocol for real-time communication and collaboration, and I really want to see that kept alive.
Zachary Yaro On 15 March 2015 at 11:46, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for that I'll look into both your Javascript API and your Android > one. > > Is your communication between client and server just between your forked > one or the "standard" wave server as well? > If your approach is functional and everyone could agree to use it I feel a > lot of progress could be made. > > > > ~~~ > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > > On 15 March 2015 at 16:31, Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I’d like to clarify a bit more my work during the last year and a half, > as > > I think it can respond to the needs that are being raised in this thread: > > > > - Wave storage based on Database > > - Server-Client separation > > - Reduce code complexity or cover it up > > - No dependency to GWT / Ability to build clients in modern frontend > > frameworks > > - Mobile support > > > > > > I’ve addressed basically all that: > > > > - Provided MongoDB storage for Waves > > - Discarded GWT client and replaced by a JavaScript API. Anyone can > > build Web apps in new frontend frameworks like AngularJS… > > - Extended Wave model to support general collaborative content: maps, > > lists and strings. You can use the Wave to store your own data. > > - The API is being adapted to work for Android and Java, although > still > > experimental > > > > > > Some of them have been added to the original Wave project, but others are > > available in my forked version of Wave: > > > > The Wave platform including the general JavaScript API: > > https://github.com/P2Pvalue/incubator-wave > > > > > > Experimental port of the Wave API to Android: > > https://github.com/Zorbel/swell-android > > > > > > I will keep contributing to Wave... > > > > > > 2015-03-15 16:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com>: > > > > > "Splash is an old client but looked like it was quite split from the > > server > > > architecture. > > > What am I missing?" > > > > > > That its almost certainly not compatible with the current Wave sever > > code. > > > > > > Back when it was Google wave there was 4-5 clients, including prototype > > > mobile ones. > > > All died pretty soon after the transfer to Apache. > > > > > > I admit I havnt checked on Splash recently though, if its had a update > in > > > the past year to make it compatible again I wouldn't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 March 2015 at 12:09, Francesco Rossi <f...@schermaontc.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Yuri suggested me in PVT some interesting open alternatives although > I > > > > think they would still lack the options that Wave has. > > > > Just to name 2 of them: > > > > share.js > > > > rizzoma > > > > > > > > of course they have different functions, but at least they would > share > > > > some Wave dna. > > > > the point is that coding on top of those solutions seemed a lot of > work > > > > just to catch up with the features Wave has. > > > > > > > > but I'd be glad to be disputed at this point. > > > > > > > > Still, I'm a bit perplexed about the client/server conversation. I > > looked > > > > around and just for example, Splash is an old client but looked like > it > > > was > > > > quite split from the server architecture. > > > > What am I missing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/15/2015 3:51 AM, Bruce Hellstrom wrote: > > > > > > > >> The problem is technology keeps marching on while the wave project > has > > > >> remained mostly stagnant. I wanted to setup an internal wave server > > at > > > our > > > >> company and try to get it adopted as the company standard for our > > > >> communications. I hate trying to manage email threads that get so > > long > > > and > > > >> disjointed. Wave was such a good solution. I wanted to wait until > > the > > > db > > > >> storage of waves support was put in, which is there now I believe. > > > >> > > > >> However, the company has started using Slack and I have to say it's > > hard > > > >> to argue against that with a beta of Wave in it's current state. > > Slack > > > has > > > >> a lot of the features I was looking for in wave as well as clients > > that > > > >> work on almost all mobile devices now. The downside is, the data > > > storage > > > >> resides with Slack and not on our own internal company servers, but > > that > > > >> doesn't seem to be an issue. > > > >> > > > >> I think Wave is still an awesome product that was ahead of it's > time, > > > but > > > >> now it would just take too much effort to bring it up-to-date. It > > > needs to > > > >> support all the latest incarnations of the browsers, which is a > moving > > > >> target now that almost all are on fast release cycles. It needs > full > > > >> mobile support apps. I just don't think there's enough people who > > have > > > >> enough time to devote to all that needs to be done. > > > >> > > > >> On 03/15/2015 03:23 AM, Francesco Rossi wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Guys, > > > >>> I'm a newbie too and we are thinking of building an entire app over > > > wave. > > > >>> It sounds really bat that the community is willing to give up. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 3/15/2015 3:14 AM, ujadatron wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> It sounds bad. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'm a "few days newbee" in this mailing list. (I'm looking for a > > > >>>> flexible open source collaboration framework). > > > >>>> Do you suggest any of them? (if the Wave will retire) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> thanks in advance > > > >>>> adatron > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 2015.03.14. 22:28 keltezéssel, James Keener írta: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> 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 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
