I initially planned to write up some detailed thoughts on the Google Wave video and the Google Wave Federation protocol. However the combination of the fact that literally millions of people have watched the video [according to YouTube] and I’ve had enough private conversations with others that have influenced my thinking that I’d rather not post something that makes it seem like I’m taking credit for the ideas of others. That said, I thought it would still be useful to share some of the most insightful commentary I’ve seen on Google Wave from various developer blogs.
Sam Ruby writes in his post Google Wave
At one level, Google Wave is clearly a bold statement that “this is the type of application that every browser should be able to run natively without needing to resort to a plugin”. At to give Google credit, they have been working relentlessly towards that vision, addressing everything from garbage collection issues, to enabling drag and drop of photos, to providing compelling content (e.g., Google Maps, GMail, and now Google Wave).
But stepping back a bit, the entire and much hyped HTML5 interface is just a facade. That’s not a criticism, in fact that’s generally the way the web works. What makes Google Wave particularly interesting is that there is an API which operates directly on the repository. Furthermore, you can host your own server, and such servers federate using XMPP.
These servers are not merely passive, they can actively interact with processes called “robots” using HTTP (More specifically, JSON-RPC over POST). Once invoked, these robots have access to a full range of operations (Java, Python). The Python library implementation looks relatively straightforward, and would be relatively easy to port to, say Ruby.
Joe Gregorio has more on these APIs in his blog post Wave Protocol Thoughts where he writes
There are actually 3 protocols and 2 APIs that are used in Wave:
- Federation (XMPP)
- The robot protocol (JSONRPC)
- The gadget API (OpenSocial)
- The client-server protocol (As defined by GWT)
The last one in that list is really nothing that needs to be, or will probably ever be documented, it is generated by GWT and when you build your own Wave client you will need to define how it talks to your Wave server. The rest of the protocols and APIs are based on existing technologies.
The robot protocol looks very easy to use, here is the code for an admittedly simple robot. Now some people have commented that Wave reminds them of Lotus Notes, and I'm sure with a little thought you could extend that to Exchange and Groove. The difference is that the extension model with Wave is events over HTTP, which makes it language agnostic, a feature you get when you define things in terms of protocols. That is, as long as you can stand up an HTTP server and parse JSON, you can create robots for Wave, which is a huge leap forward compared to the extension models for Notes, Exchange and Groove, which are all "object" based extension models. In the "object" based extension model the application exposes "objects" that are bound to locally that you manipulate to control the application, which means that your language choices are limited to those that have bindings into that object model.
As someone’s whose first paying job in the software industry was an internship where I had to write Outlook automation scripts to trigger special behaviors when people sent or modified Outlook task requests, I can appreciate the novelty of moving away from a programming model based on building a plugin in an application’s object model and instead building a Web service and having the web application notify you when it is time to act which is the way the Wave robot protocol works. Now that I’ve been exposed to this idea, it seems doubly weird that Google also shipped Google Apps Script within weeks of this announcement.
Nick Gall writes in his post My 2¢ on Google Wave: WWW is a Unidirectional Web of Published Documents -- Wave is a bidirectional Web of Instant Messages that
Whether or not the Wave client succeeds, Wave is undoubtedly going to have a major impact on how application designers approach web applications. The analogy would be that even if Google Maps had "failed" to become the dominant map site/service, it still had major impact on web app design.
I suspect this as well. Specifically I have doubts about the viability of the communications paradigm shift that Google Wave is trying to force taking hold. On the other hand, I’m sure there are thousands of Web developers out there right now asking themselves "would my app be better if users could see each other’s edits in real time?","should we add a playback feature to our service as well" [ed note - wikipedia could really use this] and "why don’t we support seamless drag and drop in our application?". All inspired by their exposure to Google Wave.
Finally, I've ruminated publicly that I see a number of parallels between Google Wave and the announcement of Live Mesh. The one interesting parallel worth calling out is that both products/visions/platforms are most powerful when there is a world of different providers each exposing their data types to one or more of these rich user applications (i.e. a Mesh client or Wave client). Thus far I think Google has done a better job than we did with Live Mesh in being very upfront about this realization and evangelizing to developers that they participate as providers. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding in a year or so when we see just how many services have what it takes to implement a truly interoperable federated provider model for Google Wave.
Now Playing: Eminem
- Underground/Ken Kaniff