

5 very detailed posts analyzing Google Wave - jgilliam
http://www.endesha.com/blog/on-google-wave-part-1-architecture/

======
dabeeeenster
Two questions:

1 - What language is the wave server written in? Have google mentioned this
yet?

2 - If Wave is going to disrupt and displace email, how are they going to
combat spam? Messages between wave servers are encrypted which is a good
start, but how are they going to ensure that we don't end up where SMTP is
now?

~~~
pkulak
2 - They are encrypted, but more importantly, they can also be signed. That
could make it so that you have to pay some cert authority $20-100 if you want
to set up a Wave server that talks to the rest of the world, but... actually,
that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

That's just my understanding. I could be wrong.

~~~
extension
<http://www.waveprotocol.org/draft-protocol-spec>

"The connection MUST be secured using the TLS feature of XMPP."

So yes, you will need a cert to run a public wave server, but there is no
sensible way to avoid this.

~~~
ruslan
First, you should read on how XMPP works from <http://www.xmpp.org>. Second,
no, you don't need an SSL certificate. You may choose how your XMPP server
authenticates your own users and it's up to you do decide whether you want
them to use TLS/SSL or not and no any other XMPP server have means to learn
what authentication method was used on user end. The established practice is
to use TLS with self-signed SSL cert. Server-to-server connectins are usually
insecured, so Google may require to use SSL while connecting to their XMPP
servers, yet as till now they don't.

~~~
extension
It's right there in black and white. This isn't XMPP, it's Wave over XMPP, so
there's no reason they can't impose additional constraints, and kudos to them
for doing so. Optional TLS is effectively the same as no TLS and that just
won't do for _the_ next gen messaging standard.

------
jacabado
"A wavelet is a part of a wave which can be best compared to a e-mail in a
e-mail thread or a message is a discussion forum."

Isn’t this wrong? As far as I understand, a wavelet should be compared to an
e-mail thread and a blip to an individual e-mail message. And this comparison
just makes sense in the context of a messaging widget serving the same purpose
e-mail serves today.

I would be eager to discuss possible outcomes of this new technology. Exciting
times are coming, and more than never it’s unbelievable open to everyone to
participate in the shaping of the future. Web 2.0 is becoming a commodity.

Three questions to discuss: \- What will be the distribution and evolution of
gadgets? Will we converge to winner takes all monopolies in each of the
functionality spaces? This depends a lot on gadget inter-operability, how will
one be able to move a wavelet from wave to wave. Will there emerge wavelet
standards? This way gadget (and robot) developers can extend each other
efforts opening up competition.

\- How will online identity change? There are already a lot of privacy issues
on debate, I think most of those are non-issues raised by the demoed gadgets.
People are aware of those and most of the things raised by now will be just
solved with some preference settings. Of primary interest to me will be how
will these robots extend and manage our online identity? Big issue.

\- Enterprise applications and google stake, if everything is open (as it
seems right now) what will be Google’s interest on it? I might be being naive
here, but I can’t see clearly how will google monetize the huge enterprise
market for this. Wave provider hosting?

~~~
extension
"Enterprise applications and google stake, if everything is open (as it seems
right now) what will be Google’s interest on it? I might be being naive here,
but I can’t see clearly how will google monetize the huge enterprise market
for this. Wave provider hosting?"

Imagine your company invented email, or the web, and built all the initial
software. Even without any lock-in, you would do alright.

