Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Wave Backstage

Posted by kdawson on from the movie-by-peter-weir dept.

As Google Wave is about to be released to 100,000 beta testers tomorrow, reader snitch writes in with a link to an in-depth interview with Dhanji Prasanna, whose title is Core Engineer. It covers some of the technologies, tools, and best practices used in building Wave. "InfoQ: Would you like to give us a short technical outline of what happens to a message (blip) from the moment a user types it in the web client, until becomes available to every one else that is participating in that wave — humans or robots? ... Dhanji: Sure, a message written in the client is transformed into a series of operations that are sent to the server in real time. After authenticating and finding the appropriate user session, the ops are routed to the hosted conversation. Here these ops are transformed and applied against other incoming op streams from other users. The hosted conversation then broadcasts the valid set of changes back to other users, and to any listening robots. This includes special robots like the ones that handle spell checking, and one that handles livesearch (seen in the center search-panel), as well as explicit robotic participants that people have developed. Robotic participants write their changes in response to a user's and these are similarly converted into ops, applied and re-broadcast."

98 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Google wave... by martas · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... is making waves.

    I'll let myself out.

    --
    weinersmith
  2. Cautiously Optimistic by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have to say that I am excited about the prospects of a chat/im/document/wiki/social network collaboration system all rolled into one, but I am very skeptical if they will be able to pull it off the way they have been touting it.

    For starters, most people are very well ingrained into their way of using the particular applications that accomplish the things Wave does (all independent of each other), so I think a massive component to the success of Wave will be how good the integration tools will be. Will we be able to import contacts from Exchange straight into Wave? Will we be able to use waves in email services other than wave? IE: Could a wave user interact with a wave with someone who is using MS Exchange the same way as they interact with someone who is using Wave also?

    That said, I think Wave could seriously revolutionize the standard of email communication, and I really hope for all our sake they are able to pull it off.

    1. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by edmicman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If anything, I see this being the closest thing to actually *subvert* Exchange usage in a corporate setting. Granted, all I know is what I've read and seen in the video, but the concept strikes a chord with me. For example:

      At work, we use Exchange, and I suffer from information overload. We aren't taking advantage of the calendaring features really, other than to schedule reminders of when we have meetings. The VAST majority of my work processes involve email exchanges between multiple people, emailing copy of spreadsheets and screenshots to all of them, who in turn respond to everyone else with their own docs, etc. I may be working on any number of tasks or projects at a time, and each of those has their own threads, sets of documents, IM exchanges, everything. I try to organize them via folders, categories, posting docs to a share and telling everyone to go there to view them, but it's a mess. Granted, a lot of the problem may be lack of organization all around, but this seems to be the case no matter where I've been. We could try and copy everything to a wiki, or try and force Sharepoint to work for us, but it just doesn't work, at least right now.

      From what I understand of Wave, instead we could have a dedicated wave to each task or project. Everybody communicates via that (replacing IM and email), posts documents there (essentially replacing file shares, emailing multiple copies back and forth to everyone...and didn't I see there was some sort of version control built-in?), and everything from start to finish is contained there. It sounds like a wiki, kind of, but in real time and organizing everything communication related that you'd normally use other apps for and have that data stuck elsewhere.

      Sure, Exchange interaction should be there. But why keep using Exchange if Wave can manage your data and workflow for you? Maybe I'm off, maybe that's not how it works, and maybe I'll be disappointed. But it sounds really cool at this point :-)

    2. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by takowl · · Score: 1

      IE: Could a wave user interact with a wave with someone who is using MS Exchange the same way as they interact with someone who is using Wave also?

      I don't think so. But this is as much a conceptual matter as a technical one. Wave is based around the idea of a 'shared conversation', a common document on a server which several people can update. I'm not familiar with Exchange, and I know that it does have some collaboration features as well, but I believe that for communication, it is essentially an e-mail platform. E-mail is based on the concept of messages, sent to a number of people or services, which are fixed once you hit send.

      It should be possible to build a bridge between Wave and e-mail, and I hope that someone does. But it won't let you interact with the other participant in the same way as if they were on Wave. E-mail simply has no way to do that.

      Of course, it's built to federate, so maybe one day, Microsoft will write Wave support into Exchange. I'm not holding my breath, however.

    3. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt that they will initially, wave certainly wasn't designed to be protocol compatible with any of that; but it is (conceptually) simple enough to see how it would all fit together.

      If you are using jabber, you can't talk to AIM users, because AIM doesn't speak XMPP. However, there are "gateway" mechanisms that speak XMPP on one side, and talk to AIM on the other, that allow you to, transparently(to you), communicate with AIM users from a jabber client.

      In the same fashion, the existing services won't talk to wave, and wave won't know what to make of their inputs either; but it would be (conceptually) simple enough to build interfaces that communicate with existing services on one side, and talk to wave on the other. Whether or not third parties will bother to write decent implementations of such mechanisms is a separate question; and how well this would work depends strongly on that; but integration would certainly be possible, given a decent level of motivation.

    4. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I think a massive component to the success of Wave will be how good the integration tools will be. Will we be able to import contacts from Exchange straight into Wave?

      Of course not. How can you interact the same way you did with a Wave user when someone is using Exchange which does not support the vast majority of those features? Wave isn't e-mail it is a replacement for e-mail. It might be able to interact with existing e-mail systems in a limited way but it's not going to magically upgrade Exchange.

      Will we be able to use waves in email services other than wave?

      Can you use Yahoo chats in email services other than Yahoo chat?

      That said, I think Wave could seriously revolutionize the standard of email communication, and I really hope for all our sake they are able to pull it off.

      I think Wave has real potential to replace e-mail and chat and standard blogs. I have a lot of hope for it, but a lot depends upon what sort of deals they can manage. Will it work on the iPhone out of the box? In iChat? Will multi-protocol chat clients that are standard on various platforms incorporate support for it? Will Google get stand-alone clients up on all platforms? Will Google get major Web service providers embedding Wave in their pages as a means of supporting richer discussion boards? Wave can be the coolest thing ever, but without promoting it strongly to users it won't go anywhere. There are more than just technical challenges for Google here.

    5. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      @rehtonAesoohC: "I have to say that I am excited about the prospects of a chat/im/document/wiki/social network collaboration system all rolled into one..."

      I'm not. As I type this (14:45:00pdt 92-9-09) my home page, which has been igoogle since igoogle's inception, looks broken. It appears as though the themes server is down. WTG google.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    6. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by edmicman · · Score: 1

      Lucky for you, as I understand it, is that you could roll your own and host your own wave server...which would also be able to interact with other wave servers, a la email servers today. Just like how the world's email doesn't stop working when gmail hiccups (although reading the headlines it would seem that way).

    7. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If anything, I see this being the closest thing to actually *subvert* Exchange usage in a corporate setting.

      Screw that, I see this being something that could subvert Facebook. There's really very little difference between groupware and social media anyway -- it's just how it's optimized and featureized. So let's move back to a world where everyone is working -- or playing -- on the site or server of their choice, yet everyone is still connected together, instead of forcing everyone to join one single site.

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    8. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by slim · · Score: 1

      Will we be able to import contacts from Exchange straight into Wave? Will we be able to use waves in email services other than wave? IE: Could a wave user interact with a wave with someone who is using MS Exchange the same way as they interact with someone who is using Wave also?

      At a guess, I think that non-Wave email users will be able to participate in Wave discussions in a limited manner. Limited enough that if you were that user, you'd soon be tempted to move over to the "first class" experience.

      That's a hell of a way to build a user base.

    9. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      I think for the most part, asking if Wave can integrate with Exchange is like asking if you'll be able to send an email to Google Docs. I mean, I guess you could, but what would be the point?

      If you sent someone on Exchange a Wave, what would you expect them to be able to do with it?

      I'm guessing you'll be able to send most Waves as emails, but all the interactivity will be gone. Like having a printed copy of a document.

      I feel that Wave has the potential to replace email/IM/collaboration, and possibly more (could it replace feeds? blogs? etc). Pretty much any interactive medium where the point is the information exchange and not the environment seem suited to being replaced by Wave.

      After all, it's open. Make your own Wave server. Integrate it into your existing services.

      Definitely looking forward to it...

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    10. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I presume that you can make a wave message unmodifiable (I have a number of tasks that kinda require that) - from the looks of it you *can* use wave like threaded email, just faster.

    11. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Eventually, yes. I imagine that there will be an apt-gettable wave server within a few months.

      Theoretically it has the potential to replace email, facebook, irc and twitter all in one - but it may end up just carving its own niche... one thing I see as a potential downer is the requirement to host it in a browser.. you lose things like new message notification, which is a biggie.

    12. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      Ha. I was just thinking the other day how if you turn email into waves, facebook offers little more than an old-style mailing list.

    13. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by edmicman · · Score: 1

      I guess I hadn't looked into it much further, but I thought since it was a protocol spec, too, that you could have a desktop client implementation, too? I thought when I was looking through the sample code docs that it even came with a CLI interface for testing.

    14. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by afidel · · Score: 1

      one thing I see as a potential downer is the requirement to host it in a browser.. you lose things like new message notification, which is a biggie.

      I take it you aren't familiar with the concept of XMLHTTPRequest aka AJAX? The gchat html client works just fine for notification.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    15. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by FloydTheDroid · · Score: 1

      But a tool like this is only going to be as good as the people who use it.

      I understand your pain at work since I have the same email problem as you. People use email as a substitute for a meeting and try to come to a consensus all while constantly asking everyone else for input. So you end up with an email chain 50 replies long with more questions than you started with and somehow you have to decipher what people meant when they said, "yeah, let's do that."

      Our signal to noise ratio probably won't be any better with Google Wave but at least everything will be in one place so if you have a project manager they can hopefully moderate the discussion in a meaningful direction.

      I shudder to think of the bandwidth pipewise and processorwise that this protocol will take and am sufficiently awed at Google's sheer audacity to do such a deed.

    16. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by hjmiii · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, though if MS were smart they could look in their own backyard and subvert the subversion. I think OneNote would be one of the best Wave clients out there.

    17. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      one thing I see as a potential downer is the requirement to host it in a browser.. you lose things like new message notification, which is a biggie.

      That's only Google's implementation - there's no requirement to host it in a browser. If you watched the original video all the way through, they demonstrate a command line interface that integrates just as well.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    18. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by Genda · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm waiting until Google to releases a chat/im/document/wiki/social network/mouthwash/photo album/birth control/banana peeling/data storage/corkscrew/nail-file/feminine hygiene spray application. I'll marry it, settle down, and never leave my home office again...

    19. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Informative

      One of the most important difference b/w how Exchange and Wave work is that the later is hosted by Google and hence controlled by it.

      The protocol is open and Google has publicly stated anyone is free to host their own server. So we can safely toss that concern right out.

      With Wave we would all have to trust google with our data, which a lot of companies in the world may not be willing to do.

      Nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is, Wave is built from the ground up to concurrently integrate, in real time, both open (Google or 3rd Party) and closed (company x's own ) Wave servers in a transparent manner. With wave, you have to trust no one other than your self. Period. In fact, that is so much so the literal truth, you are less dependent on another company for your own technological collaborative destiny; which is absolutely not true for Exchange.

      Wave understands locality and security so its possible to security integrate public Wave services with private Wave servers and services without ever sharing data outside your own company.

      In short, nothing you've offered as fact is even remotely true.

    20. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      At a guess, I think that non-Wave email users will be able to participate in Wave discussions in a limited manner. Limited enough that if you were that user, you'd soon be tempted to move over to the "first class" experience.

      Actually, a properly written Wave server can allow non-Wave email users to fully participate in Wave discussions in a nearly unlimited manner. The difference is, your interface is still the same old email interface while Wave has some very clear and powerful collaborate advantages. If you're not sure what I mean, you REALLY need to go watch Google's Wave demo video.

    21. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by js_sebastian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the most important difference b/w how Exchange and Wave work is that the later is hosted by Google and hence controlled by it.

      Bullshit. It is an open protocol. In fact, I plan to run my own wave server whenever code for it is released. If this takes off like google hopes, every company/institution will be running its own wave server just like today it runs its own email server.

    22. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      "From what I understand of Wave, instead we could have a dedicated wave to each task or project. Everybody communicates via that (replacing IM and email), posts documents there (essentially replacing file shares, emailing multiple copies back and forth to everyone...and didn't I see there was some sort of version control built-in?), and everything from start to finish is contained there. It sounds like a wiki, kind of, but in real time and organizing everything communication related that you'd normally use other apps for and have that data stuck elsewhere. "

      - yes, it sounds awesome doesn't it :) I'm looking forward to test it out, email is getting completely out of hand for large bureaucratic companies.

      I'm hoping that the Google wave API can be extended to contain not only text, extending it so that painters could work together on a painting, accountants could work together on a spreadsheet, or musicians could work together on a composition would be really nice.

      Future looks bright, and open-formatted :)

    23. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by v1z · · Score: 1

      http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/wiki/Installation ?

      I like the idea of wave to a certain extent -- but I'm sceptical about the architecture. For IM/collaobration sure -- but as a *replacement* for email/news ? Email is pretty much bulletproof, with failover, handling of temporarily downed servers etc straight out of the box.

      Wave (as a protocol) seems far less scalable.

    24. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of wave to a certain extent -- but I'm sceptical about the architecture. For IM/collaobration sure -- but as a *replacement* for email/news ? Email is pretty much bulletproof, with failover, handling of temporarily downed servers etc straight out of the box.

      Wave (as a protocol) seems far less scalable.

      I don't know how robust/scalable it is. We will have to try and see. Anyhow I don't think it will replace email. I think it is complementary to email, and will replace some uses of email (like the endless reply-all threads that you get when collaborating on a project).

    25. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by baharris18 · · Score: 1

      The major obstacle to wave, google docs, etc for usurping MS is who controls the data... at least from a large corporate company's perspective. If I'm a Fortune 500 company I don't want to be at the mercy of Google's servers and my ISP, let alone trust them with me data and IP... even if it can save me money by firing my IT staff, I gladly pay a fortune keeping them around to insure my IP stays mine, on my servers, under my control. If google can port docs and wave and other tools to apps/servers that can stay behind my corporate firewall on my *protected* intranet, then maybe it could replace MS... but still a long shot.

    26. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by slim · · Score: 1

      Google Wave == IRC with a GUI!

      I'm learning a lot about IRC today.

      I didn't know that an IRC message was a persistent object that would be around forever.

      I didn't know that IRC users could retrospectively edit messages that had already been sent. Nor that IRC allowed you to navigate through the history of changes to a message.

      I didn't know that IRC messages were arranged in a hierarchical thread structure.

      So it's been a good day for learning.

      (Score:-1, Sarcastic)

    27. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by esper · · Score: 1

      Based on what I have read of Wave thus far, I am highly confident that it will support the sort of non-text collaboration you've described (there are already drop-in chessboards and the like for "collaboration" in the form of games). I would actually be mildly surprised if third-party devs haven't already started prototypes of Wave-based painting, spreadsheet, and musical composition apps.

    28. Re:Cautiously Optimistic by esper · · Score: 1

      Although this doesn't apply to Google Docs, it's been pretty heavily publicized from day 1 that Wave is an open protocol, running on open software, so companies will be able to build and host their own private Wave servers.

  3. Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I may be wrong, but this sounds "amazingly" like any chat room I've ever been in.

    1. Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it's also like a wiki. And a forum. And email. And a blog. All at the same time, in real time, in your browser.

    2. Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots by Neil+Hodges · · Score: 1

      If it's in a web browser, there's no way it'll be real-time. Sure, it'll appear that way, but wait until network latency goes up.

    3. Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots by gnick · · Score: 1

      Nothing is real time. Not even real life in most cases. Some things are just closer to real-time than others. Sure the term is overused, but it's really just a description for how things are behaving behind the scenes - E.g. Is it a requested refresh or a push? Is the lag significant enough that the user/target will notice or be meaningfully affected?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots by Beetle+B. · · Score: 1

      All at the same time, in real time, in your browser.

      And there's no constraint that it has to be browser based. It's open, and Google encourages others to set up their own servers, and/or clients.

      --
      Beetle B.
    5. Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Sure it doesn't have to be browser based but it has to be hosted by something that speaks HTML well enough to understand the contents of the messages (which are far from just being text).. so for the time being that means browser.

    6. Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots by Beetle+B. · · Score: 1

      Sure it doesn't have to be browser based but it has to be hosted by something that speaks HTML well enough to understand the contents of the messages (which are far from just being text).. so for the time being that means browser.

      And most email clients - including text only ones.

      Stuff like Javascript being key to a wave may prove a more browser dependent issue. HTML - not quite.

      --
      Beetle B.
    7. Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Not even real life in most cases.

      Not even in real life in ALL cases. Remember, its takes time for light to travel and you see the entire world as its reflection...and then it still has to be processed by your brain - regardless of which sense is in use.

      People completely misunderstand what real time means. In this case, real time is the more loosely accepted definition, meaning updates are immediately pushed to all clients; whereby clients may actually be other servers. In other words, as user 1 updates a wave, user 2 is able to see those updates in his client as close to user 1's actual event, as bandwidth and latency allows.

  4. Re:Sounds like Bullshit by Red+Alastor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did you ever think you just watch the video demo Google did or you feel that'd be too similar to RTFA to know what you're talking about?

    --
    Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
  5. Where is my invite? by ultrabot · · Score: 1

    ...you insensitive clods.

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  6. Re:Where is the CLI version? by tyroney · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know it is all supposed to be open source and everything but there is no Client-server protocol because it is assumed to be a web application so for a long time all we will have is Google's bloated JavaShit-filled and presumably ad-laden perpetual beta web interface.

    uh... http://www.waveprotocol.org/

  7. social networking, business collaboration... by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    nah, none of these things

    google wave is going to be the backbone of a thousand homebrew MMORPGs, probably nethack interface style at first, but i don't see why eventually it couldn't look like WoW

    heh, thanks google, for giving us our own battle.net to play with in the style of an easy programming interface

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  8. Re:Where is the CLI version? by jcwayne · · Score: 2, Funny

    Somebody needs a hug.

    --
    Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
  9. great news for cloud computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been looking forward to google wave for some time, especially considering the new client/server bssed cloud paradigm that this entails. The fact that we can now communicate on a global basis while still maintaining the orthodox model of local fat client computing aligned with mobile services gets me hard. When you align this with a local, services-based vertical operation you can really understand how this can compete with global iterations of matrix-based local operators. In fact, as i write this, me penis is getting hard and i am forced to take short breaks from typing while i slowly rub it up and down. When we look at the phenomenon of Google wave, and of course, of The Google itself, we cannot fail to look both to the past, and the future, as I slowly insert a dildo in my anus and begin to slowly fuck myself while rubbing my cock against a printout of the google home page, hopefully, to ejcaculate upon it and thus acheive catharsis.

    1. Re:great news for cloud computing by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      I thought *I* had a relaxed work environment!

      You get to print in color?!?!

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    2. Re:great news for cloud computing by BrentH · · Score: 1

      Thanks for making me laugh ;)

  10. Yeah, You're Wrong by hax0r_this · · Score: 1

    Have you tried Wave? Its nothing like a chat room, mainly because it has threads and an editable history. Think 10 people editing a google docs document specifically designed for communication between participants.

    Its far closer to a wiki than a chat room. Imagine a wikipedia discussion page (click 'discussion' at the top of any article for an example) in real time.

    1. Re:Yeah, You're Wrong by mblase · · Score: 1

      I was trying to figure out exactly how the collaboration is supposed to work, or rather how it's intended to be used. Web video isn't so great on my old machine.

      Is a Wave document meant to be written collaboratively, or just re-written? Can an author use it to solicit feedback and corrections without implementing them until they're individually approved? Are the documents just formatted text, or multimedia?

    2. Re:Yeah, You're Wrong by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      Imagine a wikipedia discussion page (click 'discussion' at the top of any article for an example) in real time.

      To be honest, the thought makes me cringe. It seems like it would be impossible to maintain any kind of threaded conversation with that kind of chaos.

      The nice thing about email and instant messaging (IM or IRC style) is that it is stateful. At any one point you have a conversation state that can be referenced and responded to. With the kind of multi-user editing and discussing this seems to suggest, it becomes impossible to reference any state except the current one. Instead of past, present, and future, you only have present.

      I've tried editing Google docs with other people at the same time. It's complete unordered chaos (unless you have some other directed medium of communication such as voice chat). I guess I like the idea of trying to combine the various methods of communication into a unified system that works better than any of the sole constituents, but if information overload (as discussed above) was a problem with a system like Exchange, what will it be like with this?

      I haven't used Wave, but I'm more interested in seeing what people do with an extensible cross-system information exchange that operates in near realtime. I think the Google demo of an online chess game using Wave is a better example of how this might be really cool than the "normal" use cases.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    3. Re:Yeah, You're Wrong by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I was trying to figure out exactly how the collaboration is supposed to work, or rather how it's intended to be used.

      They really don't define that and the protocol supports pretty much any model I could conceive. Once such model they show is, rather than approval, each user simply updates the wave. They can collaborate via the wave about the wave, concurrently. Or, as you suggested, you can have the old approval process. The later may be used if everyone is not available. But should everyone be available to concurrently collaborate, everyone can participate at the same time.

      Also, since it supports journaling and play back, imagine that "late user" coming in, and rather than disputing the meeting for thirty minutes while he comes up to speed, which was almost over, he simply replays the collaboration and can immediately begin to contribute - as he now has context which brought everyone the nonsenses of the current state of collaboration.

      So imagine the major parties providing their parts, the grammar freaks walking behind to clean things up, all at the same time. Followed by each party revising and making suggestions about each other's parts. And then when you're finished, you can share your work product without a Wave, as a concise, printable document which leaves out the journaled history. Or if you like, share all or portions of the wave, as needed.

    4. Re:Yeah, You're Wrong by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      To be honest, the thought makes me cringe. It seems like it would be impossible to maintain any kind of threaded conversation with that kind of chaos.

      Which is also why its supports threads, which can optionally, be compressed to its non-journalized representation at any branch/leaf in the wave's tree of branches and leafs.

  11. Re:Ew by pwfffff · · Score: 1

    OK? Thanks for sharing?

    If it pissed you off that much reading it why the hell do you think we'd like to read all about not only it but how angry it made you?

  12. Abridged version by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itc4253kjhw

  13. Re:Where is the CLI version? by Mia'cova · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The parent wasn't referring to federation, which is the server-to-server communication. The parent was referring to client-server communication, in which google's servers and their web client are all wrapped up together. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that we wouldn't be able to write a rich-client for google's servers. So you'd need to start an independent server and build up a protocol from scratch essentially.

  14. You've got it right. by copponex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a real time protocol with built in journaling, that is both free and open. Think of it as HTML written after the knowledge that connections will be mostly persistent and fast. Waves are going to replace damn near everything displayed live on web pages. It's basically an open and extensible combination of wikis, sharepoints, calendaring, and web forums.

    Google OS + Waves + commodity hardware. If anything, at least the next version of windows will be much less expensive.

    1. Re:You've got it right. by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The thing that always trips me out is that this is a *protocol*, which means (should mean) it's open, extensible, and the software in the Google demo is just the beginning of applications we'll be seeing with wave tech. When folks begin adding their own custom software to "ride on top of the wave" (I guess that's the correct terminology), we'll see the true power of this tech.

      The applications for wave haven't even begun.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    2. Re:You've got it right. by D+Ninja · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google OS + Waves + commodity hardware. If anything, at least the next version of windows will be much less expensive.

      So, basically, you're saying we can (wait for it)...wave...goodbye to high Windows prices?

      Alright, alright. I'm letting myself out...

  15. Wave need a killer app. by Tei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems the Killer App of Google IO and Google Gears is Wave, but Wave lacks a killer app. Withouth that, It will not be popular.

    Wave may need a killer app that needs a 90% of the features that provide, or only a 10%. Also, a killer app will cement some ideas about what Wave is. Another problem with Wave, is that is nothing just now, is nothing and everything, but need to be something, and that nameless something is yet to be invented. I suppose Google want exactly that, some guy inventing a killer app for Wave, or even some usefull toys. But I don't think have it yet. Is everyone listening? Google has created Gears, and Gear can add "offline" features to any webpage. Google IO can add streaming features to any app and more. We need to listen to Google more, because is releasing some technologies and ideas that are worth our time. The XMLHttpRequest was behind our radar a few years, before people realized his raw power. I suspect theres some untapped power on some of the latest tools released by Google, and is not Wave, is what move Wave.

    Of course, I can be wrong. Who I am? another random guy on the internet :-/

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

    1. Re:Wave need a killer app. by Joe+Random · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wave lacks a killer app.

      Wave is the killer app (the reference implementation, I mean). It is, at its core, a replacement for email, IM, and wikis. In fact, that diversity may be its biggest stumbling block. As your comment shows, people will want Wave to be "something". People understand email. People understand IM. People understand collaborative editing. But what do you call something that rolls all of those together? How do you create a niche for something that encompasses functionality from what are currently considered separate niches? It's like trying to explain to someone 50 years ago about how wonderful smart phones are. "What do you mean, text messages? If I want to send a letter I'll go to the post office. Calendar? I already have one on my desk!"

      I think that this massive level of generic utility is going to slow adoption somewhat, and adoption past some threshold is exactly what Wave needs to break into mainstream usage.

    2. Re:Wave need a killer app. by LotsOfPhil · · Score: 1

      Do you think you could talk a little about killer app?

      --
      This post climbed Mt. Washington.
    3. Re:Wave need a killer app. by PaulIsTheName · · Score: 1

      Wave will be the killer app by itself if (and only if) there will be free and open source versions of the Wave frontend and server they use to present you their own Wave system. In that case you and your company can each have their own server, data silo and therefore enforcable data security without the *need* to be a silo - just drag in an external user to share and the federation magic will open up the silo for just this wave or wavelet (that is, a sub-wave).

      Not being able to decide what data stays with me and what may be seen by public (=Google) servers is the one key reason that "cloud advocates" have no chance in any data-conscious company. Wave (the protocol) makes it possible to have your own data silo that is optionally able to exchange the data with any(!) other Wave server and their users. Add a policy to that decision and there you go with an email-killer in corporations.

      Writing your own POP3-client is reasonably possible - replicating the Wave software as is in beta now requires a complete Google-team to do. Read as: It's not easy at all. And anything less usable than the Google Wave frontend will be ditched by all people but techies.

    4. Re:Wave need a killer app. by PaulIsTheName · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what I am talking about: Iff(!) they are actually and usably making it free and open, it will be a success almost immediately. If not, it will be another Google App. Though a great one. Hold your thumbs and pray for less email attachments with exponential distribution numbers.

    5. Re:Wave need a killer app. by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 1

      Writing your own POP3-client is reasonably possible - replicating the Wave software as is in beta now requires a complete Google-team to do. Read as: It's not easy at all. And anything less usable than the Google Wave frontend will be ditched by all people but techies.

      Sounds like those techies that to decide to learn something new have an opportunity to make some serious cash as 'Wave Implementation Consultants' I for one welcome our new WIC Overlords. Selling this to Academia will a cinch, they are always looking for viable collaboration technology and the fact that they can set up their own server and not have to trust google with their data is the cherry on top of the whipped cream.

      --
      open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
    6. Re:Wave need a killer app. by watergeus · · Score: 1

      I agree, Wave has everything to become a killer app.
      Now let us see how people are going to use it.

      The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    7. Re:Wave need a killer app. by dscruggs · · Score: 1

      Half the reason e-mail caught on is that it contains the word "mail." "Wave" means nothing to me. Even Lotus Notes used a name that kinda sorta hinted at what it could do, then someone coined the term groupware.

  16. Re:Sounds like Bullshit by slim · · Score: 1

    You didn't actually answer his complaint. Don't be such a fanboi.

    Why paraphrase when you can link?

  17. Re:Where is the CLI version? by JStegmaier · · Score: 1

    The "Informative" moderation on this should itself be modded +5 Funny

  18. Still looks like portable "Word w/ Track Changes" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time I look at Wave and its threaded conversations I think of Word documents when you track changes. (shudder) I think the most popular option on Wave will be a "ignore everyone's inane comments and just let me look at the original content" option.

  19. Re:I've been looking forward to this. by gilgongo · · Score: 1

    I think we should take bets now. I've got five bucks that says the "beta" tag will be removed not before 5 years from today.

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
  20. Wave looks pretty nice by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

    The feature I look forward to most is how easy it is to have multiple people in one conversation.

    I have to deal with people pretty often, who are older and somewhere between "complete technophobe" and "AOL mom". I usually end up in a two hour long conference call that could have been done faster, clearer, and unscheduled via email. If only they could grasp the concept of not top replying that the Open Source and newsgroup community has used so well. A forum is too heavyweight and met with just as much resistance.

    Wave seems like the perfect middle ground, the ease of email with a sprinkle of organization. And a lot of extra power if needed, but given the typical Google polish to keep the interface clean and easy to use.

  21. It looks like a cluttered mess by rbanzai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time I try to take a closer look at Wave it just looks like a horribly cluttered mess. It's like they said "Why use ten different programs when we can replace them with one? How? By stuffing the data from ten different programs onto one screen! GENIUS!"

    Are there any videos of this product that don't look like digital throwup? There has to be more to it than what I've been seeing, because what I've been seeing looks absolutely unusable.

    1. Re:It looks like a cluttered mess by planckscale · · Score: 1

      That's probably how Outlook looks to a lot of people when they first see it. For Wave, a user list on the left, in the center, a list of Wave "conversations", and on the right, the actual content. Does that seem to overwhelm you? That's pretty much the standard format for any website or application (three frames). The bulkiness of what I've seen seems to be Facebook-y design elements like the user icons. In addition screen resolution on screenshots and demos seem to be around 1024x768. If there is a way to use small user icons or a "detailed view" of waves, then I think it will be a pretty fluid environment.

      --
      Namaste
    2. Re:It looks like a cluttered mess by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Instead of your coworkers top-posting responses with the same subject line but different threads of conversation, email could look as clean as a message board.

      That's all I want.

      If you watch the original video, it shows a pine-lookalike client. Simple and organized, unlike any involved email conversation with multiple particpants.

    3. Re:It looks like a cluttered mess by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, Google made it very clear it will be easy to create fully compatible clients sporting whatever UI design and/or layout you wish. In fact, they are counting on it. The current interface is simply Google's first whack at it. Expect both additional iterations from Google and a polithera of third party options. Of the potential Wave issues, somehow I seriously doubt clients and/or user interfaces will the be obstacle to overcome in anyway, once Wave grabs any serious traction.

    4. Re:It looks like a cluttered mess by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Instead of your coworkers top-posting responses with the same subject line but different threads of conversation, email could look as clean as a message board.

      That's all I want.

      Exactly! I get more and more annoyed by email due to the way co-workers use it. If Wave offers a cleaner form of communication, I'm in!

    5. Re:It looks like a cluttered mess by Zerth · · Score: 1

      For that matter, you can go back and fix their misusage of apostrophes and slang that they clearly don't understand.

      Well, more likely you'd have a robot do it.

  22. Re:I've been looking forward to this. by drodal · · Score: 1

    <quote><p>I think we should take bets now. I've got five bucks that says the "beta" tag will be removed not before 5 years from today.</p></quote>

    Probably true, and it will probably become a used and useful to millions in 2 years!

  23. Re:Ew by drodal · · Score: 1

    most of these people are soooo stuck in the past... they will be obsolete in 10 year....

    Either that, or in 10 years they will complain about how new things are just like wave....... and insult you.....

  24. Re:Where is the CLI version? by Braino420 · · Score: 1

    The parent wasn't referring to federation, which is the server-to-server communication. The parent was referring to client-server communication, in which google's servers and their web client are all wrapped up together.

    I believe what he was referring to, cryptically, was the already open source console client for wave. It was released, as an example, when they open sourced some of the federation code. It doesn't have the realtime updates, so it's kind of meh. Either way, client-server communication and a rich client is definitely possible, and I'm having trouble figuring why someone would think otherwise.

    --
    They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
  25. PyGoWave by simon13 · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're itching to try out Google Wave like I am, a bunch of developers have already launched their own wave server implementation. A combination of Python + Django Framework + Javascript. You can create an account and have a play around, or you can download and run your own. Note that its still in early alpha state.

    http://pygowave.net/

    1. Re:PyGoWave by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      It's buggy as all heck, but it seems like a really decent start. Plus Django is a huge draw. If I don't get a Wave invite tomorrow, I think I'll pitch in. Thanks for the link!

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    2. Re:PyGoWave by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      I am assuming this is built on Google's Wave technology? Or is this entirely your own implementation?

    3. Re:PyGoWave by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Cool! Thanks! Haven't gotten an invite yet, so this is a great way to play around with it.

  26. Re:Where is the CLI version? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    The parent wasn't referring to federation, which is the server-to-server communication. The parent was referring to client-server communication, in which google's servers and their web client are all wrapped up together. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that we wouldn't be able to write a rich-client for google's servers. So you'd need to start an independent server and build up a protocol from scratch essentially.

    Or write a client that pretended to be a server and use the federation protocol directly.

  27. Re:Still looks like portable "Word w/ Track Change by Shortgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good thing they have it. It's at 0:33:20 in the big fat video http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html#video.

    --
    Note to self: Make a funny sig.
  28. Re:Where is the CLI version? by marcansoft · · Score: 2, Informative

    won't work, because you actually need to be a server (i.e. you need a domain with SRV records and open ports and a reasonably static IP and whatnot).

    The open client protocol problem is simply a problem that hasn't been solved yet. I'm sure a solution will arrive. As long as the server-to-server federation protocol is open, you're golden.

  29. Re:Sounds like Bullshit by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

    You only need to watch about the first 15 minutes to get a good understanding of what it is and why it's innovative. I'd skip the boring hyped up intro though—not that it doesn't deserve some of that hype, just that it's not very informative. Personally, I think it's a really cool app. This is the first time I've heard about it, but I'm already eagerly awaiting its public beta.

    It probably won't be as revolutionary or game changing as e-mail, instant messaging/text messaging, or wikis. But it seems like it will at least have as much of an impact on the online community as other innovative, well-designed applications like Google Search, Gmail, Firefox, etc., each of which used preexisting ideas to re-imagine a common everyday tool/application. Though none of these applications contain any groundbreaking ideas of their own, they nonetheless deliver a novel user-experience by the seamless integration of preexisting ideas in a new and refreshing way—or sometimes just by their flawless execution of existing ideas.

  30. My title is just Software Engineer by dhanji · · Score: 1

    Been taking shit at work all morning, afaik I don't work on any "cores" =) Dhanji.

  31. Re:Where is the CLI version? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    No, they said, they were going to release the Javascript for their web client (plus, it's not like you can't already take a peek at it right now with firebug).

    It's just that their web client code is still a moving target at this very moment. And they did release a primitive console client at least (so third parties could get started in at least testing their own implementation of a wave server).

  32. I wonder if I might be getting an invite. by Hidyman · · Score: 1

    I logged onto the wave.google.com site and it says: Your Google Account has not yet been activated for Google Wave.

    --
    You can't take the sky from me ...
  33. developer's sandbox account == fun by MarkWatson · · Score: 1

    I've had a developer's account for a while, and I think that wave is fun. Most fun is writing robots that receive events (which events is a configuration option) when people add text to a wave, join a wave, etc. A robot can then itself modify or add to a wave.

    1. Re:developer's sandbox account == fun by mu22le · · Score: 1

      I've had a developer's account for a while, and I think that wave is fun.

      Do you have any invite for the sandbox? Care to send me one? (muzzle at gmail)

  34. Re:Wow. It's IRC with pictures. by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    Imagine IRC. Ok now imagine you have fucking PICTURES in your irc client!! HOLY SHIT!!!111

    Yeah. The sad part is that they went to the trouble of writing their own protocol from scratch, too.

    This looks good, but Google could have bought a BSD license from whoever writes X chat, and hacked that to include a built in graphic viewer, and possibly XDCC for sending the files.

    I'll probably at least give it a try, and maybe even like it, but you've gone to a lot more trouble here than you needed to, Google. We've known how to write IRC fserves for 14 years now. If you wanted one, all you had to do was ask. ;)

  35. Re:Where is the CLI version? by KIngo · · Score: 1

    Her

  36. CLI for Google Wave by KIngo · · Score: 1

    Here it is:

    http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/wiki/ConsoleClient

  37. Re:Where is the CLI version? by slim · · Score: 1

    there is no Client-server protocol because it is assumed to be a web application so for a long time all we will have is Google's bloated JavaShit-filled and presumably ad-laden perpetual beta web interface.

    There is a client-server protocol, and it is that protocol you would use if developing a robot:

    http://code.google.com/apis/wave/extensions/

    The robot acts as a user. It gets notified of new blips, can create/edit blips.

  38. Re:Sounds like Bullshit by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Some of the cooler bits are towards the end, though: a dozen people editing the same document simultaneously, completely open protocol and open source server and client so you can set up your own Wave server, and a console client (rather than Google's own web client) to prove that point.

  39. Re:Still looks like portable "Word w/ Track Change by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

    Already there, it's called "History". If you watch the 80 min video, you'll see them demo it as a slider on a timeline. Cool, yes?

    --
    When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.