Hiya all! I am new to this mailing group and I wanted to further understand the limitations OR differences that WiaB provides in comparisson to:
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/pie-computing#/entity And WHY has there not been a successor (based on the GOOGLE WAVE project) that has ever been launched for commercial use!? Cheers! Adam 2:29 środa, 2016-3-16, Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com> napisał(a): Sorry many mistakes, currently on mobile. Meant to say "the OS editors arnt bad but....." On 16/03/2016 11:18 AM, "Evan Hughes" <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I had a look at quill and react seperatly dismorning, interestingly the > atom editor is built using react and they have done at least one if not > more about how they get more performance out of it, moving rendering to the > gpu and such. > > Do you think itll actually be possible to remove ot somewhat from the > client, how do we efficently send data to the client that the document has > changed. > > Also we must be very careful abiut what editor we choose if we arnt > building one inhouse, debugging could destroy us all. > > But the c-rendering we could do inhouse then we would have a basis for > creating a c-editor from scatch. Not that the OS projects are bad but its a > pretty broad featire set we need. > On 16/03/2016 11:00 AM, "Joseph Gentle" <m...@josephg.com> wrote: > >> Sorry, just poking in here - >> >> A couple of years ago I worked with QuillJS's author to add OT to >> quill. Its a rich text editor, which emits user events and Jason (the >> author) has a module which interprets those events, builds operations >> and can do OT with them. It doesn't support rich embedding of >> components yet, but he's working on that now. >> >> React's Draft-js might also work well. >> >> -J >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Michael MacFadden >> <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > All, >> > >> > A few things on the editor. For one. I think ACE is a plain text >> editor, which I have used for a bunch of things. Has a great API for >> collaboration integration, but it is not rich text, which is what wave is >> all about. So I don’t think that will work. >> > >> > Also, I think perhaps I should clarify the term editor. I probably >> used in inappropriately. >> > >> > There are two parts to be concerned with. The first is collaborative >> rendering. If you are just looking at a blip, you can still see it change >> in real time. So this would be collaborative rendering. Then when you are >> actively editing a blip, you need a collaborative editor. Both are >> important. >> > >> > The main performance issue comes in two places. First I may have a >> conversation model that contains hundreds of blips. Some sort of lazy >> loading strategy here is probably required and smart attaching and >> detaching of listeners. If you have hundreds of blips all rendered at once >> and all having to have listeners attached to them because any one of them >> can change at any time you can run into rendering performance issues. >> Secondarily, if you do have lots of people editing lots of blips, much of >> that will not be “on screen” for a given user, and you don’t want to be >> processing all of those events and messing with the DOM if you don’t need >> to. So there are performance and complexity issues there. >> > >> > Then there is the actual editor. Building a Rich Text Editor is not >> trivial (still.. How can this be???). So you have to deal with all the >> issues of building a rich text editor. Then on top of that you want to >> integrate remote cursors, selections, authorship, etc. into that editor. >> Most editors do not have that (a few do, and some are easier than others to >> add that). So there is complexity here as well. >> > >> > If you want to use an open source editor you need one that does the >> kind of rich text editing you want to do. It needs to either have the >> collaboration capabilities (shared cursors, etc.) that you want, or it has >> to be reasonably easy to implement them yourself. And it needs to have a >> good enough eventing API for you to hook into it to capture local changes, >> and to have API to allow you to drive remote changes into it. >> > >> > The point being that, the conversation renderer and rich text editor is >> a very non-trivial component, if the assumption is to roughly replicate >> what is there. >> > >> > >> > One point I definitely agree with is that the editor itself really >> should know nothing about OT. It should be decoupled and just needs to >> have a good API with good events. >> > >> > ~Michael >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 3/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Pablo Ojanguren" <pablo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Talking about editors I suggest ace from mozilla, >> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_%28editor%29 >> >> >> >>BTW, as example, this is an app we are developing on with SwellRT as >> >>backend: http://staging.teem.works , -it is the staging version, you >> can >> >>play! ;)- >> >> >> >>2016-03-15 17:12 GMT+01:00 Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> No, not really. Javascript on client side is enough - this is how it >> was >> >>> originally implemented in microwave by antimatter. >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > Ah, right. I am all for realtime, merely that I was also happy to >> lose >> >>> > it if it meant significantly more simple implementation. >> >>> > >> >>> > >>"Otherwise we can use Robot >> >>> > >>API - like in https://github.com/vega113/microbox"; >> >>> > >> >>> > Not keen on RobotAPI as every time I read its use it seems to need >> an >> >>> > extra server in the chain/ >> >>> > ie; >> >>> > ...<>WaveServer <> Google App Engine <> client >> >>> > >> >>> > It should be possible with the web today to avoid that and have >> >>> > clients connect directly to the wave server no? (hopefully using the >> >>> > same protocol as any desktop/mobile client). >> >>> > Of course, I assume you could run host both servers on the same >> >>> > hardware, but still seems unnecessary to have that extra step. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > -- >> >>> > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. >> >>> > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On 15 March 2016 at 16:48, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > > Yeah, the intention is to have realtime editing. Otherwise we can >> use >> >>> > Robot >> >>> > > API - like in https://github.com/vega113/microbox >> >>> > > >> >>> > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:45 PM Thomas Wrobel < >> darkfl...@gmail.com> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> Does it need to be OT aware on that scale? I thought that was >> only >> >>> > >> needed to have fully realtime blip updating rather then a "edit + >> >>> > >> submit" system. (whereupon the differences could be calculated >> >>> > >> separately from the editing) >> >>> > >> Is the intention then to still have realtime editing ? or is this >> >>> > >> needed anyway regardless? >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> I admit I only know the basics of OT and am vaguely remembering a >> >>> > >> conversation about realtime blip editing adding complexity to >> things. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> -- >> >>> > >> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. >> >>> > >> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story >> generator. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> On 15 March 2016 at 16:30, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> > Not really. You would need to make it OT aware. and then make >> it >> >>> > >> efficient. >> >>> > >> > Lot's of effort. >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:24 PM Thomas Wrobel < >> darkfl...@gmail.com> >> >>> > >> wrote: >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> As a side, I noticed Michael MacFadden mentioned building a >> rich >> >>> text >> >>> > >> >> editor in the browser, this much at least have been done in >> GWT >> >>> > >> >> libraries; >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> http://www.gwtproject.org/javadoc/latest/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/RichTextArea.html >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> Its fairly basic, but then, I would assume to start with at >> least >> >>> any >> >>> > >> >> new wave client should stay fairly basic? >> >>> > >> >> -- >> >>> > >> >> http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. >> >>> > >> >> http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story >> >>> generator. >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> On 15 March 2016 at 15:48, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> > Yeah, we need to re-use the existing editor. Patches would >> be >> >>> > great! >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:46 PM Pablo Ojanguren < >> >>> > pablo...@gmail.com> >> >>> > >> >> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >> >> Hi, >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> I agree with the dependency hell issue and the suggestion >> for >> >>> > >> throwing >> >>> > >> >> >> away the GWT client. This would require a new >> client-server API >> >>> as >> >>> > >> >> >> suggested, however I think a Rest API won't be enough, >> because >> >>> > real >> >>> > >> >> editing >> >>> > >> >> >> needs websocket. >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> I also agree with Michael, developing a new editor is a >> massive >> >>> > >> task, so >> >>> > >> >> >> we should use an existing one and plug it in the new API. >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> To write again the server in other language would be >> great, but >> >>> I >> >>> > >> think >> >>> > >> >> it >> >>> > >> >> >> requires a huge effort. >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> I will be happy to help in decoupling the server-client, I >> can >> >>> > >> provide >> >>> > >> >> the >> >>> > >> >> >> experience from my fork. And I plan to send some patches >> to Wave >> >>> > >> soon. >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> These are some slides about my fork (swellrt) it could >> give you >> >>> > some >> >>> > >> >> ideas: >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WFDS_m7eyNjBjcdPs0zH496Y9bMSl0_JnSEYGjxNFn0/edit?usp=sharing >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18hMYyECo5EmQsrAb8DT6SkO7LksWVJnhdZmqeCsar4c/edit?usp=sharing >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> btw, I would like to start a business providing these >> SwellRT >> >>> > >> services. >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> 2016-03-14 23:27 GMT+01:00 Joseph Gentle <m...@josephg.com>: >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I've been playing with the idea of starting a company >> around a >> >>> > >> rewrite >> >>> > >> >> of >> >>> > >> >> >>> wave for years. >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> -J >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On Tuesday, 15 March 2016, Adam Bielski >> >>> > <a_biel...@ymail.com.invalid >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Hiya all!I wish I could find out who is potentially >> >>> interested >> >>> > in >> >>> > >> >> >>> creating >> >>> > >> >> >>> > the WAVE for a commercial service/productwith my seed >> >>> > >> startup!Cheers! >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Adam >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > 20:23 poniedziałek, 2016-3-14, Zachary Yaro < >> >>> > zmy...@gmail.com >> >>> > >> >> >>> > <javascript:;>> napisał(a): >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > I am inclined to agree with Yuri—if the alternative >> >>> > >> implementation >> >>> > >> >> can >> >>> > >> >> >>> be >> >>> > >> >> >>> > developed in parallel around the same protocol, that >> would >> >>> seem >> >>> > >> to be >> >>> > >> >> >>> the >> >>> > >> >> >>> > best scenario, but the existing codebase should be kept >> >>> because >> >>> > >> it is >> >>> > >> >> >>> > (AFAIK) the most functional implementation of the >> protocol. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Zachary Yaro >> >>> > >> >> >>> > On Mar 14, 2016 15:05, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com >> >>> > >> <javascript:;>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > I think that more "wavy" projects are nice, but IMO it >> >>> > doesn't >> >>> > >> >> mean we >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > should abandon Apache Wave as it is now. I agree >> there are >> >>> a >> >>> > >> lot of >> >>> > >> >> >>> > issues >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > with current code, but I think there's still value as >> >>> people >> >>> > can >> >>> > >> >> see >> >>> > >> >> >>> what >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > Wave can potentially be. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:46 AM Evan Hughes < >> >>> > >> >> wisebald...@apache.org >> >>> > >> >> >>> > <javascript:;>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > The link for those who wish to join, Ill also add >> this >> >>> link >> >>> > >> onto >> >>> > >> >> the >> >>> > >> >> >>> > new >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > website. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > https://www.hipchat.com/gsModF8CY >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 at 12:12 Michael MacFadden < >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > michael.macfad...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > Yeah. Chatting is fine and beneficial. We just >> need to >> >>> > make >> >>> > >> >> sure >> >>> > >> >> >>> we >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > capture key decisions and rationale back in the >> list >> >>> for >> >>> > >> all to >> >>> > >> >> >>> see. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > ~Michael >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > On Mar 12, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Evan Hughes < >> >>> > >> >> >>> wisebald...@apache.org >> >>> > >> >> >>> > <javascript:;>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > It does not so as Ive seen other projects state >> this >> >>> > motto >> >>> > >> >> "If >> >>> > >> >> >>> its >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > not >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > on >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > the mailing list it didnt happen at all", but >> allows >> >>> > for >> >>> > >> non >> >>> > >> >> >>> formal >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > talk >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > and back and forth discussion realtime. The >> Monthly >> >>> > >> reports >> >>> > >> >> >>> that we >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > talked >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > about back when we did the hangout session >> should >> >>> > >> probably be >> >>> > >> >> >>> > picked >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > up >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > again, ill add it to the monthly todo's. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 at 11:58 Michael MacFadden < >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > michael.macfad...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> One follow up question though. Does hip hat >> store >> >>> > >> >> conversations >> >>> > >> >> >>> > in a >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> publicly accessible manner? If not, we need >> to make >> >>> > sure >> >>> > >> >> key >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > decisions >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> that come out of chats are captured and >> discussed on >> >>> > the >> >>> > >> >> >>> mailing >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > list >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > for >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> all to see. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> ~Michael >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>> On Mar 12, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Evan Hughes < >> >>> > >> >> >>> wisebald...@apache.org >> >>> > >> >> >>> > <javascript:;>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>> I would get infra to make us a hipchat >> channel so >> >>> we >> >>> > >> have >> >>> > >> >> some >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > place >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > to >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>> talk casually web interface / irc, but seesm >> the >> >>> > jira's >> >>> > >> >> down. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > Looking >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > to >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>> getting this rolling in some way or another >> by mid >> >>> > week. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>> ~ Evan >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 19:48 Evan Hughes < >> >>> > >> >> >>> > wisebald...@apache.org <javascript:;>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> The client-server protocol would define a >> protobuf >> >>> > and >> >>> > >> >> json >> >>> > >> >> >>> rest >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> services >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> so any language that support protocol buffers >> >>> would >> >>> > be >> >>> > >> >> able >> >>> > >> >> >>> to >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > make >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > a >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> client or fallback to the json rest. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 19:24 Andreas Kotes < >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> count-apache....@flatline.de <javascript:;>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> FWIW, >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> I also consider the idea pretty good and >> would >> >>> want >> >>> > >> >> stronger >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > decoupling >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> of server/client. I'd be interested in a >> python >> >>> > client >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > implementation, >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> mostly for CLI and bot integration. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> Not sure whether doing a client-side C >> >>> > implementation >> >>> > >> of >> >>> > >> >> the >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> communication protocol would be best here >> (so >> >>> > wrapper >> >>> > >> for >> >>> > >> >> >>> more >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> languages >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> can follow), or whether native Python would >> be >> >>> > >> better. We >> >>> > >> >> >>> need >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> something >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> for non-Java folks in any case, I think. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> Cheers, >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> count >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:52:34AM +1000, >> Evan >> >>> > Hughes >> >>> > >> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>>> Thankyou all for your feedback and >> expressions >> >>> of >> >>> > >> >> >>> interests, >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > seems >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> like >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> we >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>>> may be able to develop some teams together >> to >> >>> make >> >>> > >> this >> >>> > >> >> a >> >>> > >> >> >>> > faster >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> reality >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>>> than just I. Hopefully we can get some more >> >>> > people to >> >>> > >> >> >>> express >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> interests >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> in >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>>> this way forward. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> -- >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> Andreas 'count' Kotes >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> Taming computers for humans since 1990. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> "Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what >> makes >> >>> you >> >>> > >> come >> >>> > >> >> >>> alive, >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > and >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > go >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> do >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> it. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> Because what the world needs is people who >> have >> >>> > come >> >>> > >> >> >>> alive." -- >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > Howard >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >>>>> Thurman >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> > >> >
