You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@rave.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> on 2011/08/05 14:32:12 UTC
Google and Mozilla working on web intents
In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
platform javascript library at
https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Lee <sl...@opendirective.com>
Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
This should be really powerful for widget interactions
Details: here
http://webintents.org/
Steve
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Steve Lee <st...@fullmeasure.co.uk>.
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Scott Wilson
> <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 14:53, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 August 2011 14:44, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
>>>>
>>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I've only read the two links provided so I'm clueless (as usual ;-)
>>
>> No worries :-)
>>
>> At the moment it seems to store providers at webintents.org. I imagine if picked up more broadly it will store them in the client browser somewhere, and then use some sort of cloud service for providing recommendations if you haven't got anything suitable registered locally.
>
> I played with it a little bit. For each app, the registration of
> services that will be used by the app is done by putting tag/elements
> "<intent>" into HTML pages. WebIntent javascript library parses those
> elements and maintains a service registry. As Scott mentioned, so far
> providers are stored at webintents.org.
If used to launch a suitable widget for the intent then it makes sense
the container does it (albeit delegating to the JS library).
Steve
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by "Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo" <je...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Scott Wilson
<sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2011, at 14:53, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 5 August 2011 14:44, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>
>>>
>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
>>>
>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>
>> I'm afraid I've only read the two links provided so I'm clueless (as usual ;-)
>
> No worries :-)
>
> At the moment it seems to store providers at webintents.org. I imagine if picked up more broadly it will store them in the client browser somewhere, and then use some sort of cloud service for providing recommendations if you haven't got anything suitable registered locally.
I played with it a little bit. For each app, the registration of
services that will be used by the app is done by putting tag/elements
"<intent>" into HTML pages. WebIntent javascript library parses those
elements and maintains a service registry. As Scott mentioned, so far
providers are stored at webintents.org.
> It also doesn't seem to work on non-webkit browsers for some reason.
I have the same problem here.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Steve Lee <sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>
>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>
>>>> Details: here
>>>>
>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by "Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo" <je...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Scott Wilson
<sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2011, at 14:53, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 5 August 2011 14:44, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>
>>>
>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
>>>
>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>
>> I'm afraid I've only read the two links provided so I'm clueless (as usual ;-)
>
> No worries :-)
>
> At the moment it seems to store providers at webintents.org. I imagine if picked up more broadly it will store them in the client browser somewhere, and then use some sort of cloud service for providing recommendations if you haven't got anything suitable registered locally.
I played with it a little bit. For each app, the registration of
services that will be used by the app is done by putting tag/elements
"<intent>" into HTML pages. WebIntent javascript library parses those
elements and maintains a service registry. As Scott mentioned, so far
providers are stored at webintents.org.
> It also doesn't seem to work on non-webkit browsers for some reason.
I have the same problem here.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Steve Lee <sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>
>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>
>>>> Details: here
>>>>
>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 5 Aug 2011, at 14:53, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 5 August 2011 14:44, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>> platform javascript library at
>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>
>>
>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
>>
>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
>>
>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>
> I'm afraid I've only read the two links provided so I'm clueless (as usual ;-)
No worries :-)
At the moment it seems to store providers at webintents.org. I imagine if picked up more broadly it will store them in the client browser somewhere, and then use some sort of cloud service for providing recommendations if you haven't got anything suitable registered locally.
It also doesn't seem to work on non-webkit browsers for some reason.
>
> Ross
>
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Steve Lee <sl...@opendirective.com>
>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>
>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>
>>> Details: here
>>>
>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 5 Aug 2011, at 14:53, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 5 August 2011 14:44, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>> platform javascript library at
>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>
>>
>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
>>
>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
>>
>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>
> I'm afraid I've only read the two links provided so I'm clueless (as usual ;-)
No worries :-)
At the moment it seems to store providers at webintents.org. I imagine if picked up more broadly it will store them in the client browser somewhere, and then use some sort of cloud service for providing recommendations if you haven't got anything suitable registered locally.
It also doesn't seem to work on non-webkit browsers for some reason.
>
> Ross
>
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Steve Lee <sl...@opendirective.com>
>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>
>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>
>>> Details: here
>>>
>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 5 August 2011 14:44, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>> platform javascript library at
>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>
>
> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
>
> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
>
> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
I'm afraid I've only read the two links provided so I'm clueless (as usual ;-)
Ross
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Steve Lee <sl...@opendirective.com>
>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>
>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>
>> Details: here
>>
>> http://webintents.org/
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 5 August 2011 14:44, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>> platform javascript library at
>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>
>
> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
>
> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
>
> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
I'm afraid I've only read the two links provided so I'm clueless (as usual ;-)
Ross
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Steve Lee <sl...@opendirective.com>
>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>
>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>
>> Details: here
>>
>> http://webintents.org/
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:07, Dominik Renzel wrote:
> Scott,
>
> answers and comments inline...
>
> Am 10.08.2011 11:25, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>> We have had a lot of discussions (and a few patches) related to inter-widget communication in Wookie also. I think the issue is selecting which of many potential implementations to go with. Shindig/OpenSocial would seem to favour using OpenAjax Hub pub/sub as the IWC mechanism, however there are a lot of alternatives, as Ivan Zuzak has explored in his work over several years now:
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/pmrpc/wiki/IWCProjects
>> http://ivanzuzak.info/papers/2011_IWC_slides.pdf
> It would be interesting to know why you favored OpenAjax Hub. Some of my project partners should be interested to discuss this, since they did the local IWC part.
I don't particularly favour it myself, but its in the OpenSocial specification and has been implemented in Shindig, so I kind of treat it as a default.
>> Combining both single-browser, single-user scope IWC and multi-browser, multi-user scope IWC with a single API is an interesting idea - is that what you mean by local and remote? Or is it just whether the messaging hub is located client or server-side, and the messages are all in a single-user, single-page scope?
> It's the combination you mentioned first. One local messaging hub per browser, one server-side messaging hub (node in XMPP PubSub terminology) for multiple users; an XMPP-enabled proxy widget forwards messages from remote entities to the local hub, which again forwards remote messages to subscribed local widgets.
>>
>> I think the main thing I've been struggling with for this (I'm also working on selecting the IWC mechanism for a telecoms project) is usability and user control - its one thing to allow the "Address Book" widget to talk to the "Credit Rating" widget, its another to give the user control of whether they think this should be allowed to happen.
> Yes, I totally agree here. Moreover, if you come to the case with multiple users, it is also the question if user A is willing to process events coming in from a potentially malicious user B he does not know and trust. We tried to approach this problem with introducing trust values for each user's XMPP roster list contact and a trust threshold configurable per user. Each user can assign trust values to all his contacts. For yet unknown people a trust value can be inferred following Golbeck's TidalTrust algorithm. If the trust value of user A towards user B is below A's trust threshold, the event is discarded upon arrival. We are currently evaluating this approach.
Great, I'm glad you're looking into this.
I was also favouring providing the user with information prompts along the lines of "widget x wants to share information about topic y with widget z" as a way of explicitly letting users allow or disallow IWC connections, a bit like geolocation.
>>
>> Another concern is hunting and cycling of messaging - e.g. A sends message to B, this triggers B -> C, which triggers C -> A... This would be an easy mistake for end-users to make when adding widgets to pages. (I've made this happen accidentally myself a few times while testing, resulting in the Spinning Pizza of Death in Safari)
> Same thing happened to me as well...
>
> And at least for the multi-browser, multi-user part, there is another question of context. Concretely, multiple parties would have to have a common context in which they work together, for example a chat room, a widget space, a Google Wave, etc., from which a Jabber ID for the PubSub node can be automatically derived. Or they would have to negotiate the Jabber ID of the Publish-Subscribe node they use for remote event exchange, which is not quite user friendly. This of course makes the whole thing more complex than the single-user, single-browser variant. We have discussed various options in our project.
Wookie uses the "shareddatakey" as the context identifier, and for Rave we have the concept of "spaces" which is pretty analogous. So this provides a context identifier which can be used for a pubsub context - e.g. as a namespace prefix onto a topic (e.g. using Faye)
>>
>> It would be good to have some common answers to these issues.
> I'd be glad to be part of the discussion!
:-D
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dominik
>>
>> S
>>
>> On 9 Aug 2011, at 18:42, Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo wrote:
>>
>>> Dominik,
>>> We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
>>> framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
>>> into it definitely.
>>>
>>> Gerald
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
>>> <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
>>>> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
>>>> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
>>>> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
>>>> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
>>>> and native Android applications in future...
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dominik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>>>
>>>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>>>>> providers for each user lives?
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>>>>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>>>>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>>>>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>>>>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>>>>> especially if this takes off.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Details: here
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>>>
>
> <renzel.vcf>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:07, Dominik Renzel wrote:
> Scott,
>
> answers and comments inline...
>
> Am 10.08.2011 11:25, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>> We have had a lot of discussions (and a few patches) related to inter-widget communication in Wookie also. I think the issue is selecting which of many potential implementations to go with. Shindig/OpenSocial would seem to favour using OpenAjax Hub pub/sub as the IWC mechanism, however there are a lot of alternatives, as Ivan Zuzak has explored in his work over several years now:
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/pmrpc/wiki/IWCProjects
>> http://ivanzuzak.info/papers/2011_IWC_slides.pdf
> It would be interesting to know why you favored OpenAjax Hub. Some of my project partners should be interested to discuss this, since they did the local IWC part.
I don't particularly favour it myself, but its in the OpenSocial specification and has been implemented in Shindig, so I kind of treat it as a default.
>> Combining both single-browser, single-user scope IWC and multi-browser, multi-user scope IWC with a single API is an interesting idea - is that what you mean by local and remote? Or is it just whether the messaging hub is located client or server-side, and the messages are all in a single-user, single-page scope?
> It's the combination you mentioned first. One local messaging hub per browser, one server-side messaging hub (node in XMPP PubSub terminology) for multiple users; an XMPP-enabled proxy widget forwards messages from remote entities to the local hub, which again forwards remote messages to subscribed local widgets.
>>
>> I think the main thing I've been struggling with for this (I'm also working on selecting the IWC mechanism for a telecoms project) is usability and user control - its one thing to allow the "Address Book" widget to talk to the "Credit Rating" widget, its another to give the user control of whether they think this should be allowed to happen.
> Yes, I totally agree here. Moreover, if you come to the case with multiple users, it is also the question if user A is willing to process events coming in from a potentially malicious user B he does not know and trust. We tried to approach this problem with introducing trust values for each user's XMPP roster list contact and a trust threshold configurable per user. Each user can assign trust values to all his contacts. For yet unknown people a trust value can be inferred following Golbeck's TidalTrust algorithm. If the trust value of user A towards user B is below A's trust threshold, the event is discarded upon arrival. We are currently evaluating this approach.
Great, I'm glad you're looking into this.
I was also favouring providing the user with information prompts along the lines of "widget x wants to share information about topic y with widget z" as a way of explicitly letting users allow or disallow IWC connections, a bit like geolocation.
>>
>> Another concern is hunting and cycling of messaging - e.g. A sends message to B, this triggers B -> C, which triggers C -> A... This would be an easy mistake for end-users to make when adding widgets to pages. (I've made this happen accidentally myself a few times while testing, resulting in the Spinning Pizza of Death in Safari)
> Same thing happened to me as well...
>
> And at least for the multi-browser, multi-user part, there is another question of context. Concretely, multiple parties would have to have a common context in which they work together, for example a chat room, a widget space, a Google Wave, etc., from which a Jabber ID for the PubSub node can be automatically derived. Or they would have to negotiate the Jabber ID of the Publish-Subscribe node they use for remote event exchange, which is not quite user friendly. This of course makes the whole thing more complex than the single-user, single-browser variant. We have discussed various options in our project.
Wookie uses the "shareddatakey" as the context identifier, and for Rave we have the concept of "spaces" which is pretty analogous. So this provides a context identifier which can be used for a pubsub context - e.g. as a namespace prefix onto a topic (e.g. using Faye)
>>
>> It would be good to have some common answers to these issues.
> I'd be glad to be part of the discussion!
:-D
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dominik
>>
>> S
>>
>> On 9 Aug 2011, at 18:42, Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo wrote:
>>
>>> Dominik,
>>> We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
>>> framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
>>> into it definitely.
>>>
>>> Gerald
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
>>> <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
>>>> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
>>>> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
>>>> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
>>>> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
>>>> and native Android applications in future...
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dominik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>>>
>>>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>>>>> providers for each user lives?
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>>>>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>>>>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>>>>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>>>>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>>>>> especially if this takes off.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Details: here
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>>>
>
> <renzel.vcf>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Dominik Renzel <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de>.
Scott,
answers and comments inline...
Am 10.08.2011 11:25, schrieb Scott Wilson:
> We have had a lot of discussions (and a few patches) related to inter-widget communication in Wookie also. I think the issue is selecting which of many potential implementations to go with. Shindig/OpenSocial would seem to favour using OpenAjax Hub pub/sub as the IWC mechanism, however there are a lot of alternatives, as Ivan Zuzak has explored in his work over several years now:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/pmrpc/wiki/IWCProjects
> http://ivanzuzak.info/papers/2011_IWC_slides.pdf
It would be interesting to know why you favored OpenAjax Hub. Some of my
project partners should be interested to discuss this, since they did
the local IWC part.
> Combining both single-browser, single-user scope IWC and multi-browser, multi-user scope IWC with a single API is an interesting idea - is that what you mean by local and remote? Or is it just whether the messaging hub is located client or server-side, and the messages are all in a single-user, single-page scope?
It's the combination you mentioned first. One local messaging hub per
browser, one server-side messaging hub (node in XMPP PubSub terminology)
for multiple users; an XMPP-enabled proxy widget forwards messages from
remote entities to the local hub, which again forwards remote messages
to subscribed local widgets.
>
> I think the main thing I've been struggling with for this (I'm also working on selecting the IWC mechanism for a telecoms project) is usability and user control - its one thing to allow the "Address Book" widget to talk to the "Credit Rating" widget, its another to give the user control of whether they think this should be allowed to happen.
Yes, I totally agree here. Moreover, if you come to the case with
multiple users, it is also the question if user A is willing to process
events coming in from a potentially malicious user B he does not know
and trust. We tried to approach this problem with introducing trust
values for each user's XMPP roster list contact and a trust threshold
configurable per user. Each user can assign trust values to all his
contacts. For yet unknown people a trust value can be inferred following
Golbeck's TidalTrust algorithm. If the trust value of user A towards
user B is below A's trust threshold, the event is discarded upon
arrival. We are currently evaluating this approach.
>
> Another concern is hunting and cycling of messaging - e.g. A sends message to B, this triggers B -> C, which triggers C -> A... This would be an easy mistake for end-users to make when adding widgets to pages. (I've made this happen accidentally myself a few times while testing, resulting in the Spinning Pizza of Death in Safari)
Same thing happened to me as well...
And at least for the multi-browser, multi-user part, there is another
question of context. Concretely, multiple parties would have to have a
common context in which they work together, for example a chat room, a
widget space, a Google Wave, etc., from which a Jabber ID for the PubSub
node can be automatically derived. Or they would have to negotiate the
Jabber ID of the Publish-Subscribe node they use for remote event
exchange, which is not quite user friendly. This of course makes the
whole thing more complex than the single-user, single-browser variant.
We have discussed various options in our project.
>
> It would be good to have some common answers to these issues.
I'd be glad to be part of the discussion!
Best regards,
Dominik
>
> S
>
> On 9 Aug 2011, at 18:42, Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo wrote:
>
>> Dominik,
>> We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
>> framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
>> into it definitely.
>>
>> Gerald
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
>> <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
>>> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
>>> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
>>> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
>>> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
>>> and native Android applications in future...
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Dominik
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>>
>>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>>>> providers for each user lives?
>>>>
>>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>>>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>>>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>>>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>>>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>>>> especially if this takes off.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>>
>>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>>
>>>>> Details: here
>>>>>
>>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Dominik Renzel <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de>.
Scott,
answers and comments inline...
Am 10.08.2011 11:25, schrieb Scott Wilson:
> We have had a lot of discussions (and a few patches) related to inter-widget communication in Wookie also. I think the issue is selecting which of many potential implementations to go with. Shindig/OpenSocial would seem to favour using OpenAjax Hub pub/sub as the IWC mechanism, however there are a lot of alternatives, as Ivan Zuzak has explored in his work over several years now:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/pmrpc/wiki/IWCProjects
> http://ivanzuzak.info/papers/2011_IWC_slides.pdf
It would be interesting to know why you favored OpenAjax Hub. Some of my
project partners should be interested to discuss this, since they did
the local IWC part.
> Combining both single-browser, single-user scope IWC and multi-browser, multi-user scope IWC with a single API is an interesting idea - is that what you mean by local and remote? Or is it just whether the messaging hub is located client or server-side, and the messages are all in a single-user, single-page scope?
It's the combination you mentioned first. One local messaging hub per
browser, one server-side messaging hub (node in XMPP PubSub terminology)
for multiple users; an XMPP-enabled proxy widget forwards messages from
remote entities to the local hub, which again forwards remote messages
to subscribed local widgets.
>
> I think the main thing I've been struggling with for this (I'm also working on selecting the IWC mechanism for a telecoms project) is usability and user control - its one thing to allow the "Address Book" widget to talk to the "Credit Rating" widget, its another to give the user control of whether they think this should be allowed to happen.
Yes, I totally agree here. Moreover, if you come to the case with
multiple users, it is also the question if user A is willing to process
events coming in from a potentially malicious user B he does not know
and trust. We tried to approach this problem with introducing trust
values for each user's XMPP roster list contact and a trust threshold
configurable per user. Each user can assign trust values to all his
contacts. For yet unknown people a trust value can be inferred following
Golbeck's TidalTrust algorithm. If the trust value of user A towards
user B is below A's trust threshold, the event is discarded upon
arrival. We are currently evaluating this approach.
>
> Another concern is hunting and cycling of messaging - e.g. A sends message to B, this triggers B -> C, which triggers C -> A... This would be an easy mistake for end-users to make when adding widgets to pages. (I've made this happen accidentally myself a few times while testing, resulting in the Spinning Pizza of Death in Safari)
Same thing happened to me as well...
And at least for the multi-browser, multi-user part, there is another
question of context. Concretely, multiple parties would have to have a
common context in which they work together, for example a chat room, a
widget space, a Google Wave, etc., from which a Jabber ID for the PubSub
node can be automatically derived. Or they would have to negotiate the
Jabber ID of the Publish-Subscribe node they use for remote event
exchange, which is not quite user friendly. This of course makes the
whole thing more complex than the single-user, single-browser variant.
We have discussed various options in our project.
>
> It would be good to have some common answers to these issues.
I'd be glad to be part of the discussion!
Best regards,
Dominik
>
> S
>
> On 9 Aug 2011, at 18:42, Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo wrote:
>
>> Dominik,
>> We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
>> framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
>> into it definitely.
>>
>> Gerald
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
>> <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
>>> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
>>> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
>>> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
>>> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
>>> and native Android applications in future...
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Dominik
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>>
>>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>>>> providers for each user lives?
>>>>
>>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>>>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>>>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>>>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>>>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>>>> especially if this takes off.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>>
>>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>>
>>>>> Details: here
>>>>>
>>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
We have had a lot of discussions (and a few patches) related to inter-widget communication in Wookie also. I think the issue is selecting which of many potential implementations to go with. Shindig/OpenSocial would seem to favour using OpenAjax Hub pub/sub as the IWC mechanism, however there are a lot of alternatives, as Ivan Zuzak has explored in his work over several years now:
http://code.google.com/p/pmrpc/wiki/IWCProjects
http://ivanzuzak.info/papers/2011_IWC_slides.pdf
Combining both single-browser, single-user scope IWC and multi-browser, multi-user scope IWC with a single API is an interesting idea - is that what you mean by local and remote? Or is it just whether the messaging hub is located client or server-side, and the messages are all in a single-user, single-page scope?
I think the main thing I've been struggling with for this (I'm also working on selecting the IWC mechanism for a telecoms project) is usability and user control - its one thing to allow the "Address Book" widget to talk to the "Credit Rating" widget, its another to give the user control of whether they think this should be allowed to happen.
Another concern is hunting and cycling of messaging - e.g. A sends message to B, this triggers B -> C, which triggers C -> A... This would be an easy mistake for end-users to make when adding widgets to pages. (I've made this happen accidentally myself a few times while testing, resulting in the Spinning Pizza of Death in Safari)
It would be good to have some common answers to these issues.
S
On 9 Aug 2011, at 18:42, Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo wrote:
> Dominik,
> We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
> framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
> into it definitely.
>
> Gerald
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
> <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
>> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
>> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
>> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
>> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
>> and native Android applications in future...
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>>
>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>
>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>>> providers for each user lives?
>>>
>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>>> especially if this takes off.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>
>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>
>>>> Details: here
>>>>
>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Dominik Renzel <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de>.
Gerald,
nice to hear that. If you need any information, I'll be glad to help.
Best,
Dominik
Am 09.08.2011 19:42, schrieb Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo:
> Dominik,
> We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
> framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
> into it definitely.
>
> Gerald
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
> <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
>> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
>> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
>> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
>> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
>> and native Android applications in future...
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>
>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>>> providers for each user lives?
>>>
>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>>> especially if this takes off.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>
>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>
>>>> Details: here
>>>>
>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
We have had a lot of discussions (and a few patches) related to inter-widget communication in Wookie also. I think the issue is selecting which of many potential implementations to go with. Shindig/OpenSocial would seem to favour using OpenAjax Hub pub/sub as the IWC mechanism, however there are a lot of alternatives, as Ivan Zuzak has explored in his work over several years now:
http://code.google.com/p/pmrpc/wiki/IWCProjects
http://ivanzuzak.info/papers/2011_IWC_slides.pdf
Combining both single-browser, single-user scope IWC and multi-browser, multi-user scope IWC with a single API is an interesting idea - is that what you mean by local and remote? Or is it just whether the messaging hub is located client or server-side, and the messages are all in a single-user, single-page scope?
I think the main thing I've been struggling with for this (I'm also working on selecting the IWC mechanism for a telecoms project) is usability and user control - its one thing to allow the "Address Book" widget to talk to the "Credit Rating" widget, its another to give the user control of whether they think this should be allowed to happen.
Another concern is hunting and cycling of messaging - e.g. A sends message to B, this triggers B -> C, which triggers C -> A... This would be an easy mistake for end-users to make when adding widgets to pages. (I've made this happen accidentally myself a few times while testing, resulting in the Spinning Pizza of Death in Safari)
It would be good to have some common answers to these issues.
S
On 9 Aug 2011, at 18:42, Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo wrote:
> Dominik,
> We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
> framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
> into it definitely.
>
> Gerald
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
> <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
>> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
>> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
>> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
>> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
>> and native Android applications in future...
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>>
>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>
>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>>> providers for each user lives?
>>>
>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>>> especially if this takes off.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>
>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>
>>>> Details: here
>>>>
>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Dominik Renzel <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de>.
Gerald,
nice to hear that. If you need any information, I'll be glad to help.
Best,
Dominik
Am 09.08.2011 19:42, schrieb Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo:
> Dominik,
> We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
> framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
> into it definitely.
>
> Gerald
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
> <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
>> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
>> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
>> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
>> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
>> and native Android applications in future...
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>>> platform javascript library at
>>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>>
>>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>>> providers for each user lives?
>>>
>>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>>> especially if this takes off.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>>
>>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>>
>>>> Details: here
>>>>
>>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by "Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo" <je...@gmail.com>.
Dominik,
We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
into it definitely.
Gerald
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
<re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
> and native Android applications in future...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dominik
>
>
> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>
>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>> platform javascript library at
>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>
>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>> providers for each user lives?
>>
>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>> especially if this takes off.
>>
>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>
>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>
>>> Details: here
>>>
>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Steve Lee <st...@fullmeasure.co.uk>.
A bit more information on web intents here:
http://www.webmonkey.com/2011/08/google-mozilla-team-up-to-create-a-smarter-action-based-web/
Steve
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
<re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
> and native Android applications in future...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dominik
>
>
> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>
>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>> platform javascript library at
>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>
>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>> providers for each user lives?
>>
>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>> especially if this takes off.
>>
>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>
>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>
>>> Details: here
>>>
>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Steve Lee <st...@fullmeasure.co.uk>.
A bit more information on web intents here:
http://www.webmonkey.com/2011/08/google-mozilla-team-up-to-create-a-smarter-action-based-web/
Steve
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
<re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
> and native Android applications in future...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dominik
>
>
> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>
>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>> platform javascript library at
>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>
>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>> providers for each user lives?
>>
>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>> especially if this takes off.
>>
>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>
>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>
>>> Details: here
>>>
>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by "Zhenhua (Gerald) Guo" <je...@gmail.com>.
Dominik,
We are also considering implementing inter-widget communication
framework in RAVE. Your work in ROLE is interesting and I will look
into it definitely.
Gerald
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Dominik Renzel
<re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we are
> developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both local and
> remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP PubSub) and uses
> the Google Android schema for intents as the event payload format. This
> works quite well, and was thought to enable communication between widgets
> and native Android applications in future...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dominik
>
>
> Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
>>
>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>>> platform javascript library at
>>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>>
>> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of
>> providers for each user lives?
>>
>> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for
>> widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for
>> example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through
>> phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user
>> in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea,
>> especially if this takes off.
>>
>> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>>
>>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>>
>>> Details: here
>>>
>>> http://webintents.org/
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Dominik Renzel <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de>.
Dear all,
this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we
are developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both
local and remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP
PubSub) and uses the Google Android schema for intents as the event
payload format. This works quite well, and was thought to enable
communication between widgets and native Android applications in future...
Best regards,
Dominik
Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>> platform javascript library at
>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>
> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
>
> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
>
> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>
>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>
>> Details: here
>>
>> http://webintents.org/
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Dominik Renzel <re...@dbis.rwth-aachen.de>.
Dear all,
this is indeed quite interesting. In the context of the ROLE project, we
are developing an interwidget communication library that realizes both
local and remote forms (local via HTML5 PostMessage, remote via XMPP
PubSub) and uses the Google Android schema for intents as the event
payload format. This works quite well, and was thought to enable
communication between widgets and native Android applications in future...
Best regards,
Dominik
Am 05.08.2011 15:44, schrieb Scott Wilson:
> On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
>> platform javascript library at
>> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>>
> This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
>
> Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
>
> I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Steve Lee<sl...@opendirective.com>
>> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
>> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
>> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>>
>> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>>
>> Details: here
>>
>> http://webintents.org/
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
> platform javascript library at
> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>
This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steve Lee <sl...@opendirective.com>
> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>
>
> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>
> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>
> Details: here
>
> http://webintents.org/
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Google and Mozilla working on web intents
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 5 Aug 2011, at 13:32, Ross Gardler wrote:
> In addition to the article below there is an Apache licensed cross
> platform javascript library at
> https://github.com/PaulKinlan/webintents
>
This looks really interesting - though I'm not sure where the registry of providers for each user lives?
Paul and I have been working on a dynamic service binding mechanism for widgets using a backend service registry and some selection logic - for example for identifying which SMS sending API to use (e.g. direct through phone device API, or via server-side SMS gateway). However, putting the user in control of selecting providers for services may be a better idea, especially if this takes off.
I wonder if it removes the need for oAuth in some cases?
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steve Lee <sl...@opendirective.com>
> Date: 5 August 2011 11:07
> Subject: [raveincontext-dev] Google and Mozilla working on web intents
> To: raveincontext-dev@googlegroups.com
>
>
> http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/google-announces-plans-to-bake-android-like-web-intents-into-chrome/
>
> This should be really powerful for widget interactions
>
> Details: here
>
> http://webintents.org/
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com