Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Businesses Google The Internet

Google Open Sources Wave Protocol Implementation 183

Posted by timothy
from the this-open-source-stuff-is-a-fad dept.
eldavojohn writes "Certainly one of the most important steps in adopting a protocol is a working open source example of it. Well, google has open sourced an implementation of the wave protocol for those of you curious about Google's new collaboration and conversation platform. It's been reviewed, skewered and called 'Anti-Web' but now's your chance to see a Java implementation of it. The article lists it as still rapidly evolving so it might not be prudent to buy into it yet. Any thumbs up or thumbs down from actual users of the new protocol?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Open Sources Wave Protocol Implementation

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @12:21PM (#28854089)

    It clearly can't be anti-web.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Smegly (1607157)
      It might be pro-GoogleOS. I would not be surprised if it becomes a communication hub for Google's netbook OS.
  • Google is definitely taking the right step in open sourcing Wave. Now, if only I could get an invite to participate in the Wave beta....
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by megamerican (1073936)

      What is The Wave's motto?

      Strength through discipline, strength through community, strength through action!

      Google chose a very fitting name. [thewave.tk]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Yogiz (1123127)

      I assume you've tried signing up [google.com]? You should be able to develop something however if you want to get a peek.

      • That takes a while. I'm still waiting for mine, since I thought they would actually read the proposals, instead of just slowly giving out accounts first-come-first-serve, and so wasn't part of the initial rush.

  • by bennomatic (691188) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @12:23PM (#28854141) Homepage
    Too confusing. Requires a browser. Won't run on my iPod. Lame.
  • the announcement (Score:3, Informative)

    by neonprimetime (528653) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @12:27PM (#28854211)
    here [blogspot.com] from 4 days ago
  • I realize that this is Slashdot and a certain amount of technical knowledge is assumed, but I don't necessarily keep tabs on every little thing Google says or does. So would someone care to explain, even very briefly, what the hell the Wave protocol is for? Even a few words in a sentence in the summary would have been appreciated.

    • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @12:36PM (#28854375)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_wave#Product [wikipedia.org]

      That wasn't so hard, now was it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Raffaello (230287)

      this [google.com]

    • by jtdennis (77869) <oyr249m02@sneakema[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @12:37PM (#28854397) Homepage

      I've read reviews of it as real time collaboration. Think of it as private e-mail, IM, and document collaboration all in one system.

    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @12:51PM (#28854629)

      Many people have responded to your post with links, but I know people are really, really, really lazy. So Google Wave is kind of a nifty new communications paradigm designed to replace e-mail, IM, IRC, and other collaboration tools. The basic idea is to create communications centered around a conversation with as many participants as needed, rather than trying to take a two way communication like a letter and expand it to sort of work for more people.

      If you're the only person in the conversation (or wave) online, it works like e-mail. As soon as a second person is online at the same time, it works like IM. It is sort of timestamp version controlled so you can rewind conversations and see how the conversation branched and you can embed the conversations in generic Web pages. It's extensible so you can add additional communications to it, and they've added a way to post images and host them as photo galleries.

      In short it's new, but similar in ways to IM and e-mail and it's fairly cool, but watching a video makes more sense than reading a lengthy explanation.

      • by rs79 (71822)

        I was gonna say it's like mail, usenet, facebook and cvs all rolled into one.

    • by iluvcapra (782887) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @12:52PM (#28854647)

      It defines a protocol that allows servers to publish documents with threaded conversations, and allow users on different servers to edit those documents and append to the threaded conversations in real-time. It also defines an API that lets developers extend the kind of media that can be placed in the documents, and make documents interactive with the user or other services. It also uses a messaging semantic based on operational transformation, that allows users to browse the complete editing history of any document or thread, and allows agents observing a document to resolve their local state by reading a document as a stream of deltas (it's more complicated than this, but I have yet to wrap my head around OTs completely).

      People say it's like email because it lets you do messaging in non-real-time, and has threaded conversations, and documents and media attachments, and it's an open standard. People say it's like IM because conversations are posted to threads in real-time, keystroke-by-keystroke. People say it's like Google Docs (or other such things) because it allows collaborative editing of documents, except this lets you edit the document contemporaneous with other people, since the server protocol merges all updates to the document keystroke-by-keystroke.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tekfactory (937086)

      Whatever you do, don't read this

      http://sites.google.com/a/waveprotocol.org/wave-protocol/draft-protocol-spec [google.com]

      I tried reading it and its like the South Park episode with the Marklar, only replace Marklar with Wave as the only Noun/Verb in the language.

      Its an adressible service like email or newsgroups, users have usernames @ domains and can subscribe to or send content to lists/groups.

      It has a collaborative aspect, parts RSS feed/Twitter/Wiki and I think it will be easier to understand when there is more cont

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Starayo (989319)
      I wish I could use my mod points to mod you a lazy bastard. I mean COME ON, it's a google product. GOOGLE. JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT!
  • by argent (18001) <peterNO@SPAMslashdot.2006.taronga.com> on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @12:50PM (#28854619) Homepage Journal

    It seems to be a different approach to the same problem, with Croquet using distributed synchronization of computation rather than synchronized distribution of updates.

  • by SebaSOFT (859957) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @01:00PM (#28854777) Homepage

    I think that every web developer that misses this out, will pay it hard.
    Experts say that true innovations are hard to detect. I would say, keep an eye on this, or you will regret it.

    • Experts say that true innovations are hard to detect.

      What a bizarre statement. Who are these experts? What is their area of expertise? When did they say this? Are you just trying to use vague language to give extra gravity to your statement?

      I would contend that innovation is relatively easy to detect, while innovation that will make a lot of money is hard to detect.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by SebaSOFT (859957)

        I've recently attended to a Soft skills workshop on Innovation. So I would say that there are experts that study innovation over the years. When I say detect I mean not just happen to be in front of an innovative idea, but to actually detect it as a game-changing, so yeas, they are rarely to be adopted.

  • Anyone know how on earth Google expects to make money off of this thing? It looks amazing, but how do you make money off of this if it's open sourced, free, and took a ton of development time to build (and presumably support in the future)?
    • Anyone know how on earth Google expects to make money off of this thing? It looks amazing, but how do you make money off of this if it's open sourced, free, and took a ton of development time to build (and presumably support in the future)?

      Obviously they plan to make money the same way they do with GMail. They'll offer a free in the cloud service to normal users and either provide ads alongside the client and/or robotically harvest the conversations to better target online ads to their users. They might even sell corporate Wave hosting services to corporations or sell servers with it pre-installed and ready to go to corporations.

    • Anyone know how on earth Google expects to make money off of this thing? It looks amazing, but how do you make money off of this if it's open sourced, free, and took a ton of development time to build (and presumably support in the future)?

      Well, look at DNS and SMTP and HTTP... Those are open, documented, universally available protocols. Anyone can implement them. I don't know how much anybody made simply by inventing SMTP... But plenty of people have cashed in on it since then.

      Some people rent hosted mailservers... Other people sell the server software... Other folks sell support for free mailserver software... And then there's all sorts of add-on things like spam filtering and web front-ends and email clients and everything else...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Krneki (1192201)
      Google is winning because they are as smart on technical stuff as they are on getting money from advertising without pissing of users.

      Make no mistake, whoever is in charge of ad marketing in Google is a pure genius.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by js_sebastian (946118)
      Perhaps they make money by commoditizing some of the products of their potential competitors in the online advertisement arena. Social networking sites, blogs, messaging, email, etc, can all be reimplemented in a cool, interoperable way on top of wave. If this takes off, it will take a bite out of closed playgrounds such as facebook et al.
    • Anyone know how on earth Google expects to make money off of this thing?

      Its technology that (when released as open source) has the potential to revolutionize and commoditize collaboration, opening up a huge market for a well positioned service provider with a reputation for providing online services and a global network of data centers to provide services to small-to-medium sized businesses that don't have their own datacenters, and to enterprises that would prefer to outsource collaboration, while providin

    • This isn't about google making money. It's about taking something their competitors are making huge profits from and reducing marginal profit of these services to zero by turning it into a commodity. See this post [slashdot.org] to an earlier Wave article from a google employee.
  • First of all, anyone who has not yet seen the video of the presentation, I recommend you to do that [google.com].

    I'm usually the first guy who worries about privacy when using Google's systems and I do not buy easily into new fads. However this time I think Google is on the right track.

    I can easily think of tens and tens of use cases for the waves. You can aggregate news, RSS, e-mail, IM, twitter, blogs, forums and comments all into one place and not have to worry about having to open up five different clients and find

    • Wave will become popular, because it is independent of Google. Every company, every ISP and even every small group of people who might not even want their waves to leave their LAN can set up their own wave server.

      I'd say Wave and Jabber are in similar situations in this regard. Both are open (even sharing the same protocol partly) and people do run their own Jabber servers, but as with Jabber there are already entrenched server vendors and service providers for communication and that's a lot of momentum to overcome. I'd like to think that major vendors like Microsoft, Apple, Sun, AOL, and Yahoo will all jump on the Wave bandwagon and expand their existing clients and services to use it interoperably with Google and

      • I'd say Wave and Jabber are in similar situations in this regard. Both are open (even sharing the same protocol partly) and people do run their own Jabber servers, but as with Jabber there are already entrenched server vendors and service providers for communication and that's a lot of momentum to overcome

        Jabber is a nice open IM protocol. So it's interoperable, but other than that what big advantages does it have over Skype, MSN, etc? Wave OTH is a totally new concept and, if people like it, and if the entrenched players do not provide it, they will lose users pretty fast. Also you can easily implement a wave robot that basically acts as a proxy to wave for your IM of choice (so long as the IM protocol is public or has been successfully reverse engineered)

        • Jabber is a nice open IM protocol. So it's interoperable, but other than that what big advantages does it have over Skype, MSN, etc?

          As you mention jabber is open and interoperable which addresses the biggest problem people have with IM today. But you can make the same argument with regard to Wave. Why not just use your existing and already in use e-mail, IM, and photo services in conjunction? I think Wave does bring some compelling features to the table, but I don't think compelling features are enough in our current walled garden climate.

          ...if people like it, and if the entrenched players do not provide it, they will lose users pretty fast.

          How? If it isn't not pre-installed and easy to use from the default setup on people's computers an

          • ...if people like it, and if the entrenched players do not provide it, they will lose users pretty fast.

            How? If it isn't not pre-installed and easy to use from the default setup on people's computers and phones, it won't go anywhere.

            Facebook/myspace/twitter/etc are not pre-installed, and they seem to be doing ok for themselves.

            I hate this move-the-client-into-the-browser as much as the next person, but part of the reason that Wave could work (for normal everyday user-types) is that it works in webbrowsers.

        • by Ilgaz (86384)

          "Jabber is a nice open IM protocol. So it's interoperable, but other than that what big advantages does it have over Skype, MSN, etc? "

          It is open, documented, decentralised, future ready, extensible. Ask the companies and people shaping the future of internet (Internet2) why they have chosen it as the default IM protocol to rely on.

          Google Wave could be something really nice but Google really have to clean up their "we want to own all your data", "you use our software freely but here are the terms which are

          • Google Wave could be something really nice but Google really have to clean up their "we want to own all your data", "you use our software freely but here are the terms which are privacy breaking" image which has really reached beyond "high tech tinfoil hat" community to general public.

            Umm, Google open sourced the protocol and client. What more do you want? You will soon be able to run Google Wave on your own server with your own client and never touch anything Google runs. I don't see the problem.

            I didn't like their "we sudo software update every 2 hours or don't install google earth" attitude. Oh really? I replied " Get the hell out of my machine." with rm -rf

            Why don't you run Google Earth for you amusement but limit it so it can't sudo update, ala ACLs, sandboxing , SELinux, VM, etc? It seems like OS's should make this easier, but it is doable now. Aren't OS's supposed to be giving users control over what applications running on top of them are doin

          • by Yogiz (1123127)

            "Jabber is a nice open IM protocol. So it's interoperable, but other than that what big advantages does it have over Skype, MSN, etc? "

            It is open, documented, decentralised, future ready, extensible. Ask the companies and people shaping the future of internet (Internet2) why they have chosen it as the default IM protocol to rely on.

            I believe the GP's point was that freedom does not provide that many pros for the users who might not feel compelled to swich based on that alone. Wave has it easy here, it doesn't have competition.

  • At the risk of sounding off-topic, that "Operational Transform (OT)" in the protocol is too close to "Operating Thetan (OT)" for my comfort.

  • Wave is surely an interesting concept and application, but if there's any web app that just makes you want to scream for a native implementation, it's Wave. There's no way even the fastest web browser running on a Quad core or Octo core with 8 gigs of RAM will leave you satisfied with the experience. Just as I typed that, my browser froze in Slashdot.2.0 for like five seconds.

    Why is Google spoiling good concepts by tying them to the browser exclusively? They just need to develop for the three major platform

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Wave is surely an interesting concept and application, but if there's any web app that just makes you want to scream for a native implementation, it's Wave.

      I think focusing on making one cross platform Web application that can be embedded into Web pages is probably the most effective use of their resources. No one is going to bother downloading a client unless there is some significant use of Wave first or it is being deployed in a corporate/large organization setting. Google needs to get it out there and a Web app makes a lot of sense as a first attempt.

      Why is Google spoiling good concepts by tying them to the browser exclusively? They just need to develop for the three major platforms, Windows, Linux and OS X.

      Again, I disagree. For geeks, maybe this would make sense if Google had the resources to accomplish it at t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by xororand (860319)

      I definitely agree with you. A rich client, maybe implemented with C++ and Qt4, would be very useful. The demo video actually shows a native command-line client for Wave. If that's possible, you should be able to develop any kind of interface. If Google doesn't release a thick client, maybe that's a business opportunity right at your doorstep.

    • I've used Wave on a semi-decent iMac, and it works just fine, even in beta without them ramping up on their end yet. So I'm not sure why you think the way you do about its speed.

      But Google is not tying this concept to the browser at all. It's completely open and you can absolutely implement a wave client natively if you want, and people will do that.

    • by Achoi77 (669484)

      Why is Google spoiling good concepts by tying them to the browser exclusively? They just need to develop for the three major platforms, Windows, Linux and OS X.

      Perhaps the team doesn't want to have to constantly maintain 3 seperate codebases for the same app whenever an OS goes thru a major revision.

      Or perhaps because they want users to use it "right now" instead of having them go thru the install process considering almost every machine has a browser on it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by crazybilly (947714)
      Isn't that part of the reason it's open source? So that you (or somebody you pay) can build a native client for it?

      I tend to agree--I don't particularly care to have my email/IM/collaboration software all tied up into my browser (particularly in FF or IE). I want something that does one thing and does it well. But if the protocol is open, as far as I can tell (note: IANAD(eveloper)) there's nothing stopping anybody from building a nice lean, writing-focused Wave client.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      But isn't that what Chrome OS is for? Ultimately, Google wants the browser and the OS to be identical.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jesset77 (759149)

      Why develop for three platforms and let geeks port that to many when you can develop as open source for one platform (DHTML) and actively encourage the geeks to port that to 3, and then to many?

      Hell, if I worked at Google the last thing I would want would be to get involved in GNOME/KDE turf wars, piss off apple fanbois if it doesn't look precisely like a macintosh app or really develop anything for the Windows desktop. Like, ever. So instead, Google puts it on the Web where everyone can get at it from any

    • I received a Google Wave sandbox account 8 days ago and I have been kicking the tires mostly in developing robot extensions. However, to answer your concerns about being browser based: the Wave team used GWT and the client side user interface is very nice. If you have not done so, watch the demo video.

    • It is open source, so it can be implemented in any myriad ways, not just in a browser.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DragonWriter (970822)

      Wave is surely an interesting concept and application, but if there's any web app that just makes you want to scream for a native implementation, it's Wave. [...] Why is Google spoiling good concepts by tying them to the browser exclusively?

      Its a published protocol built on top of XMPP, with a defined data model; nothing is stopping people from building native apps that produce and/or consume wave updates. Certainly, Google is doing nothing to prevent this.

      They just need to develop for the three major platf

  • I received a Wave sandbox invitation 8 days ago and since then I have been spending a lot of time writing test robot extensions, installing them on Java AppEngine, and then inviting my test robots to participate in new waves I create.

    Very cool. Very fun. Huge time sink. You know how it goes :-)

    I would like a completely local development setup, but I don't know if it is worth the effort right now. Installing new versions of a robot on AppEngine is very quick, as is creating a new Wave in the sandbox - about

  • I hope anti-web is a compliment -- this trend for replacing the OS with a comparatively limited browser, drawing commands with HTML widget hacks*, IP with XML over HTTP over TCP over IP**, local file storage with cookies and clouds***, etc, is really quite depressing...

    * woo, html canvas! It's just like a native canvas, but 1/10th the speed, and you can only use javascript, and only in some browsers! yaaaaay!

    ** woo, web sockets! Just like native sockets, except crippled, and you can only use javascript,

  • As an end user, you can invite other *humans* to participate in Waves that you create. Waves can contain text and multimedia.

    When I write a test robot, I install it on AppEngine (I use the Java version, but the robot support libraries are also available in Python). I can then create a new wave and invite my robot, just as I would invite a human participant.

    My test robots watch for new invites or changes to the text in waves, perform some processing on that text, and then add their own 'blips' to the end of

  • Would it kill you to add a few words to the summary to describe what you're talking about? Christ, you probably don't document your code either.
  • The installation was easy (on OS X) but it does not do much. You can run OpenFire, install Google's open source wave protocol project, and run server + client scripts. The client script lets you create new waves and add other participant IDs.

    However, when I try adding my robot that is running on AppEngine as a participant, I get an error on my local server. It looks like I need to re-install everything on a public server so my app on AppEngine can communicate back -- but, I am not sure what the problem is.

    H

  • This demo text client is pretty spartan. I can't wait to get my hands on the HTML5 client. I was able to get this running on Debian Lenny on EC2 pretty quickly. I got two instances to talk to each other across the Amazon net and I could invite people from the 2nd instance to participate on the 1st instance's waves. So the fundamental server stuff seems to be working. Has anybody tried this out with ejabberd?

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Working...