Skip to main content

How To Understand Wavelets

I got acquainted with developing against the Google Wave Preview last week, and I'll be doing more of it this week. There are still many gaps in the documentation and in the public understanding of what exactly is going on in a lot of cases. This post is halfway between an introduction to Wave development and a story of my personal hurdles in my first experiments working with it.

One of the first things you'll find in the Wave documentation is a diagram I have reproduced here. This diagram is wrong.


You're going to notice something when you look at this diagram and play around with Wave itself, the web client. You're going to realize you have no idea what the difference between a Wave and a Wavelet is. You don't seem to be able to even see the term "Wavelet" appear anywhere in the application! What's more, everything the API docs describe a Wavelet as is what the UI seems to call a Wave. This was really confusing to me and I know I'm not the only one confused.

It took me a little bit of time to get the perspective to understand what I missed. Correcting my diagram with that information produces this:


See what was missing there? The missing piece was the all-too-subtle connection, not between Wave and Wavelet, but between individual waves. The official documentation diagram places the waves in parallel and mislead me to look in the wrong mindset for the distinction between Wave and Wavelet in the presentation context.

So how does this pan out in the user interface of Wave? Private replies. A private reply to any blip/reply will create a new Wavelet with two participants: the creator of the blip you reply to and yourself. (Actually, you can create a single-participant child wavelet if you reply to yourself privately.)

I'd like to try some experiments and see if and how the interface would present setups like a child wavelet with completely different participants from the parent wavelet. I'm investigating the use of these as sort of hidden data channels in a Wave. For example, the Robot I am developing might store some auxiliary data about the waves it gets used in via private replies to itself. 

Now, since I'm probably going to be spending a good bit more time with Google Wave in the weeks to come, I expect to document more of the things I'll learn along the way. If you're interested, let me know what you're doing or thinking about doing with Wave.

Comments

Cory said…
Your diagrams are not public documents, so they don't come through as images.
Calvin Spealman said…
Thanks, Cory. Fixed.

That's what I get for thinking the publish feature from Google Docs to Google Blogger would actually work right for once.

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…