Comments on: Is wave to complicated? http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/ Google Wave Made Easy Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:47:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Ravikant Cherukuri http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-47 Ravikant Cherukuri Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:29:15 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-47 Mickael - ProcessOne is a XMPP company :). The rest of the world talks HTTP. I like where wave is taking the web. But the conversation as to if this is teh right approach has just begun. I like XMPP and wave. Operational Transform is clever but complicated. Maybe there is/will be an OT engine that will make it easy for the rest of the world to implement sync. I do agree with the basic premise of the article. Its time to redistribute some complexity in web protocols away from applications into standards. Mickael -
ProcessOne is a XMPP company :) . The rest of the world talks HTTP. I like where wave is taking the web. But the conversation as to if this is teh right approach has just begun. I like XMPP and wave. Operational Transform is clever but complicated. Maybe there is/will be an OT engine that will make it easy for the rest of the world to implement sync.

I do agree with the basic premise of the article. Its time to redistribute some complexity in web protocols away from applications into standards.

]]> By: Wave news for september 1 « Mastering WAVE http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Wave news for september 1 « Mastering WAVE Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:44:40 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-40 [...] claims on my post that they have made a wave implementation in their software. I cannot find anything about this [...] [...] claims on my post that they have made a wave implementation in their software. I cannot find anything about this [...]

]]> By: Mickaël Rémond http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Mickaël Rémond Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:15:19 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-38 We already have written our own Wave implementation at ProcessOne. It clearly shows that this is not too complex to implement outside Google. We already have written our own Wave implementation at ProcessOne.
It clearly shows that this is not too complex to implement outside Google.

]]> By: Arif Shaikh http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Arif Shaikh Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:10:56 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-17 Hi Daniel, Thanks for exploring Colayer Reception and for your appreciation. Yes, you can say that Colayer is a solution for complex business communications. All tools needed to communicate and work together are embedded into the Colayer platform. Hi Daniel,
Thanks for exploring Colayer Reception and for your appreciation. Yes, you can say that Colayer is a solution for complex business communications. All tools needed to communicate and work together are embedded into the Colayer platform.

]]> By: Bertil Hatt http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Bertil Hatt Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:34:29 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-16 Would I be wrong to thing that, within Wave, the easy-to-implement footstep are robots? Google probably learned from comparing Android and iPhone platforms that the low-hanging creative entreprises would benefit from a nutured environement, while more ambitious undertaking (e.g. Firefox) needed salaried teams — and revolutions needed walkabouts. For thos who'll actually want to hack Wave itself, rather then compelexity itself, what seems to matter is modularity: if I hack that bit, will everything fall apart. I'd assume this is the mark of the best coders, and Google has wizzards working on that one. As far as I know, no one looked into that specific aspect (for lack of an available global vision) but the mere fact that Google reveals the project modularly seems to indicate Wave is very much so. Would I be wrong to thing that, within Wave, the easy-to-implement footstep are robots? Google probably learned from comparing Android and iPhone platforms that the low-hanging creative entreprises would benefit from a nutured environement, while more ambitious undertaking (e.g. Firefox) needed salaried teams — and revolutions needed walkabouts.

For thos who’ll actually want to hack Wave itself, rather then compelexity itself, what seems to matter is modularity: if I hack that bit, will everything fall apart. I’d assume this is the mark of the best coders, and Google has wizzards working on that one. As far as I know, no one looked into that specific aspect (for lack of an available global vision) but the mere fact that Google reveals the project modularly seems to indicate Wave is very much so.

]]> By: dgr http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-15 dgr Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:02:23 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-15 Hi arif, I looked at your product colayer on the tour with you. It looks pretty cool and is something with will be easy to get up and running in an organisation. It works much like wave on the sandbox server. That google wave is requiring HTML5 is probably to driv people to upgrade to ne browsers. The XMPP protocol is to have communication across company borders. And it is a complex feature, but probably very requested. Hi arif,
I looked at your product colayer on the tour with you. It looks pretty cool and is something with will be easy to get up and running in an organisation. It works much like wave on the sandbox server.

That google wave is requiring HTML5 is probably to driv people to upgrade to ne browsers.

The XMPP protocol is to have communication across company borders. And it is a complex feature, but probably very requested.

]]> By: Arif Shaikh http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Arif Shaikh Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:21:53 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-14 @dgr: I will answer on behalf of Nida as I am technically involved in Colayer. The basic concepts of Colayer and Google Wave are almost the same. Colayer however uses more the currently available web standards, while Google Wave tries to develop new standards in a lot of areas. The Google Wave client is an XML client, while the Colayer client is DHTML. Google defines a new federation protocol, while Colayer uses http everywhere. But to come back to the core topic of this blog post (discussed it with Markus Hegi too -CEO and founder of Colayer): The REAL QUESTION is: DO WE NEED A NEW PROTOCOL AT ALL? and DO WE NEED a heavy xml client? Way back in the beginning of the internet, there were more than 50 differnet protocols, and now, there are basically 2 dominating ones - and do we need at all 2? We could very well do everything with one single protocol, and http is the dominating one, why not running everything on it? We could even simplify some things, and extend a little to make the REAL real time happen - (streaming) - Lets not just think of the implementation time, but lets also think of the various associated tools! - the question is not, if the federation protocol is "better" or simpler, but rather: there is a lot of knowledge out there for http - and a lot of associated tools! - think of security: what about the federation protocol and firewalls? Well, I would not make a statement, if the federation protocol will be successful or not. But why would we need it, if we can do without? - As Colayer, we will do an "honest" effort to integrate a wave server into Colayer (also, because a great company like Google is behind, and of course, because some customers will ask for it) - I can"t say how successful we will be with it, but I think that Anil Dash is a little too pessimistic in this area: I believe, with the open source, it should be possible to build a good, stable Wave server for us into the Colayer platform - The same way we have built the email interface, or the SMS interface, in order to combine the different communication worlds ... And yes, Colayer"s focus is clearly the enterprise (therefore, we have very little public versions) - I would really love to hear your opinion about it ... Please visit us on the http://colayer.com virutal reception (ask for Arif! - I will join you, if I am around) and I will show you a little of what we do! - @dgr:
I will answer on behalf of Nida as I am technically involved in Colayer.
The basic concepts of Colayer and Google Wave are almost the same. Colayer however uses more the currently available web standards, while Google Wave tries to develop new standards in a lot of areas. The Google Wave client is an XML client, while the Colayer client is DHTML. Google defines a new federation protocol, while Colayer uses http everywhere.
But to come back to the core topic of this blog post (discussed it with Markus Hegi too -CEO and founder of Colayer):

The REAL QUESTION is: DO WE NEED A NEW PROTOCOL AT ALL? and DO WE NEED a heavy xml client?

Way back in the beginning of the internet, there were more than 50 differnet protocols, and now, there are basically 2 dominating ones – and do we need at all 2? We could very well do everything with one single protocol, and http is the dominating one, why not running everything on it? We could even simplify some things, and extend a little to make the REAL real time happen – (streaming) -

Lets not just think of the implementation time, but lets also think of the various associated tools! – the question is not, if the federation protocol is “better” or simpler, but rather: there is a lot of knowledge out there for http – and a lot of associated tools! – think of security: what about the federation protocol and firewalls?

Well, I would not make a statement, if the federation protocol will be successful or not. But why would we need it, if we can do without? -
As Colayer, we will do an “honest” effort to integrate a wave server into Colayer (also, because a great company like Google is behind, and of course, because some customers will ask for it) – I can”t say how successful we will be with it, but I think that Anil Dash is a little too pessimistic in this area: I believe, with the open source, it should be possible to build a good, stable Wave server for us into the Colayer platform – The same way we have built the email interface, or the SMS interface, in order to combine the different communication worlds …

And yes, Colayer”s focus is clearly the enterprise (therefore, we have very little public versions) – I would really love to hear your opinion about it … Please visit us on the http://colayer.com virutal reception (ask for Arif! – I will join you, if I am around) and I will show you a little of what we do! -

]]> By: dgr http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-11 dgr Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:52:49 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-11 @Nida Rafiq I'm not much into what Colayer can. You are implementing some way of coordinating with the waveprotocol, os you have another client. Hopefully one whith is better suite to an enterprise setting. Are you creating a wave server with the full protocol specification. Why don't you share you thoughts on the complexity issue which is being debated now. /daniel @Nida Rafiq
I’m not much into what Colayer can. You are implementing some way of coordinating with the waveprotocol, os you have another client. Hopefully one whith is better suite to an enterprise setting.
Are you creating a wave server with the full protocol specification. Why don’t you share you thoughts on the complexity issue which is being debated now.
/daniel

]]> By: @arif http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-9 @arif Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:31:26 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-9 Google is offering drag n drop , real time translation, concurrent editing and so many cool features. Google uses HTML 5 like video,drag n drop built in tags. For end uses technology docent matter what matters is how robust it works and how different and user friendly an application is. So many users are addicted to gmail why ;) Google is offering drag n drop , real time translation, concurrent editing and so many cool features. Google uses HTML 5 like video,drag n drop built in tags. For end uses technology docent matter what matters is how robust it works and how different and user friendly an application is. So many users are addicted to gmail why ;)

]]> By: Divya http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Divya Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:00:24 +0000 http://www.masteringwave.com/2009/08/is-wave-to-complicated/#comment-8 Hi, I guess if one wishes to use sophisticated features then ,Organizations as well as individuals will have to higher versions of IE and other browsers rather than sticking on to IE6. Hi,
I guess if one wishes to use sophisticated features then ,Organizations as well as individuals will have to higher versions of IE and other browsers rather than sticking on to IE6.

]]>