Unhosted + LimeBits?
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Jonathan A. Marshall
Dec 28, 2010, 7:41:23 PM12/28/10
to unhosted
I think Unhosted would be compatible with LimeBits (http://
limebits.com/), both in mission and in technology. LimeBits and
Unhosted provide open app distribution and use open source. They have
complementary strengths and could support each other.
http://bits.limebits.com/help/content/documents/limebits_whitepaper_1.pdf
limebits.com/), both in mission and in technology. LimeBits and
Unhosted provide open app distribution and use open source. They have
complementary strengths and could support each other.
http://bits.limebits.com/help/content/documents/limebits_whitepaper_1.pdf
Bjarni Rúnar Einarsson
Dec 29, 2010, 8:04:50 PM12/29/10
to unho...@googlegroups.com
I went looking for it but couldn't find it. What did I miss? :-)
Obviously without the freedom to run alternate back-ends, there's quite a significant lock-in element to LimeBits, which is exactly what Unhosted is trying to avoid.
--
Bjarni R. Einarsson
The Beanstalks Project ehf.
Making personal web-pages fly: http://pagekite.net/
Michiel de Jong
Dec 29, 2010, 11:33:20 PM12/29/10
to unho...@googlegroups.com
sorry for the late reply. great suggestion!
for now, we are mainly seeing if we can get an unhosted module in CommonJS (actually probably two, one for the crypto and one for the rest).
if i understand correctly, we could make the unhosted code into a limebit, and that way it becomes easier for people to create websites that use unhosted technology, right?
that would be awesome. then people can choose to either include the unhosted code from CommonJS, or include it as a limebit. right?
for now, we are mainly seeing if we can get an unhosted module in CommonJS (actually probably two, one for the crypto and one for the rest).
if i understand correctly, we could make the unhosted code into a limebit, and that way it becomes easier for people to create websites that use unhosted technology, right?
that would be awesome. then people can choose to either include the unhosted code from CommonJS, or include it as a limebit. right?
Jonathan A. Marshall
Jan 1, 2011, 12:23:15 AM1/1/11
to unhosted, LimeBits Team
Thanks for your replies, Bjarni and Michiel. I think your questions
would be answered best by direct discussion between you and the
LimeBits team (http://groups.google.com/group/limebits/), rather than
via me as an intermediary. Nevertheless, let me say a few things
which I hope will encourage you to talk with them:
- The LimeBits back-end is essentially a standard WebDAV server. The
JavaScript code that you develop on LimeBits can easily be copied to
and hosted on any computer that supports WebDAV. So there's no lock-
in. You can also copy your code to and host it on an ordinary HTTP
webserver if your code doesn't need the additional WebDAV verbs like
PUT and PROPFIND, beyond the HTTP subset (GET, POST, HEAD, etc.).
- The LimeBits back-end code is an Apache extension and is compatible
with the Apache license.
- I believe that the LimeBits team is in the process of publishing
its WebDAV server code. The speed of that process might benefit from
additional community help.
- The front-end code is all JavaScript and hence by nature open-
source. It is available at http://www.limebits.com/!lime/root/ under
an open-source license (http://www.about.limebits.com/Open
Source.html).
- The key parts of the LimeBits front-end JavaScript code are the
AXIS library, which lets your code use the read-write power of WebDAV,
and the BitMix library, which lets you mix components together to
create complete websites.
- Using these libraries, it should be easy for you to make Unhosted
code components available as copyable Bits or copyable websites.
- The LimeBits code might give the Unhosted components the ability to
write data and files, via standard WebDAV, as well as read via HTTP.
Happy New Year!
--Jonathan
On Dec 29, 11:33 pm, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> sorry for the late reply. great suggestion!
> for now, we are mainly seeing if we can get an unhosted module in CommonJS
> (actually probably two, one for the crypto and one for the rest).
> if i understand correctly, we could make the unhosted code into a limebit,
> and that way it becomes easier for people to create websites that use
> unhosted technology, right?
> that would be awesome. then people can choose to either include the unhosted
> code from CommonJS, or include it as a limebit. right?
would be answered best by direct discussion between you and the
LimeBits team (http://groups.google.com/group/limebits/), rather than
via me as an intermediary. Nevertheless, let me say a few things
which I hope will encourage you to talk with them:
- The LimeBits back-end is essentially a standard WebDAV server. The
JavaScript code that you develop on LimeBits can easily be copied to
and hosted on any computer that supports WebDAV. So there's no lock-
in. You can also copy your code to and host it on an ordinary HTTP
webserver if your code doesn't need the additional WebDAV verbs like
PUT and PROPFIND, beyond the HTTP subset (GET, POST, HEAD, etc.).
- The LimeBits back-end code is an Apache extension and is compatible
with the Apache license.
- I believe that the LimeBits team is in the process of publishing
its WebDAV server code. The speed of that process might benefit from
additional community help.
- The front-end code is all JavaScript and hence by nature open-
source. It is available at http://www.limebits.com/!lime/root/ under
an open-source license (http://www.about.limebits.com/Open
Source.html).
- The key parts of the LimeBits front-end JavaScript code are the
AXIS library, which lets your code use the read-write power of WebDAV,
and the BitMix library, which lets you mix components together to
create complete websites.
- Using these libraries, it should be easy for you to make Unhosted
code components available as copyable Bits or copyable websites.
- The LimeBits code might give the Unhosted components the ability to
write data and files, via standard WebDAV, as well as read via HTTP.
Happy New Year!
--Jonathan
On Dec 29, 11:33 pm, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> sorry for the late reply. great suggestion!
> for now, we are mainly seeing if we can get an unhosted module in CommonJS
> (actually probably two, one for the crypto and one for the rest).
> if i understand correctly, we could make the unhosted code into a limebit,
> and that way it becomes easier for people to create websites that use
> unhosted technology, right?
> that would be awesome. then people can choose to either include the unhosted
> code from CommonJS, or include it as a limebit. right?
On Dec 29, 8:04 pm, Bjarni Rúnar Einarsson wrote:
> Hi Jonathan! I took a look at your whitepaper, and noticed there is much
> emphasis on the openness of the project - including mention of the back-end
> code being available for download.
> I went looking for it but couldn't find it. What did I miss? :-)
> Obviously without the freedom to run alternate back-ends, there's quite a
> significant lock-in element to LimeBits, which is exactly what Unhosted is
> trying to avoid.
> Hi Jonathan! I took a look at your whitepaper, and noticed there is much
> emphasis on the openness of the project - including mention of the back-end
> code being available for download.
> I went looking for it but couldn't find it. What did I miss? :-)
> Obviously without the freedom to run alternate back-ends, there's quite a
> significant lock-in element to LimeBits, which is exactly what Unhosted is
> trying to avoid.
> Bjarni R. Einarsson
> The Beanstalks Project ehf.
> The Beanstalks Project ehf.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages