Here is a link to my presentation at the last CoE-Telkom Industry Seminar, which took place here at the University of Cape Town. It was at the presentation that I was asked about the Google Wave, which I blogged on some days ago.
Archive for Research Ideas
A Comparison of The Google Wave and TransferHTTP
Below is an excerpt of my recent paper. I was asked about The Google Wave during an Industry seminar here at the UCT. I checked it out and found it related to my work [1, 2], so I decided to write a paper on it. I never knew that Google was also thinking in the same direction – improving the online experience through user-generated services or converged services.
The Excerpt:
Table 1 shows the comparison of our work with the Google Wave. Google Wave, which is currently under development, is a new tool for communication and collaboration on the web. It uses an open protocol [1, 2], so anyone can build their own wave system. The Google Wave API allows developers to use and enhance Google Wave through two primary types of development, namely Extensions and Embed.
The extensions (also called the Robots API) can be developed using the Java Client Library, Python Client Library, or Gadgets API, while the embed, which is embedded into a Web application, is always written in JavaScript.
The Google Wave and TransferHTTP provide the same services, though over different architectures. While Google Wave API is used to develop applications that reside on a Web server, TransferHTTP APIs are used to develop applications that reside at the client end. For example, the Click-to-dial in Google wave [3] requires the server to set up a call session, while in TransferHTTP, the client sets up the call session. In Google Wave, the robot in the Web server is responsible for the signalling, while in TransferHTTP, the SIP stack in the Web browser does the signalling.
The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) stack [4] in the Google Wave resides at the server, and its APIs are written for third-parties to help them develop converged applications. The Google team has separated the signalling (HTTP and XMPP) in a bid to maintain the current Web architecture. Hence, it could be referred to as a server-based architectural framework for service creation. In our work, a SIP stack is integrated into a Web browser to provide similar services. It was found out that the integration of a SIP stack into a Web browser does not impede its performance [5], thereby making our work a viable approach to create converged services. We provide a hybrid-based architectural framework in which services could be rendered from the client using our API. In addition, a number of services could be rendered from the proxy. These services could be called control services based on what they do. While the proxy services could be developed using the Mobicents SIP Servlets and JAIN SLEE APIs, the client services could be developed using our TransferHTTP extension API.
In summary, irrespective of the technologies or programming languages used in the Google Wave and TransferHTTP, the difference between them is that the Google Wave only has a stack (an XMPP stack) in its server, thereby making it a server-based architectural framework for service creation, while TransferHTTP has a stack (a SIP stack) both in its client and proxy, thereby making it a hybrid-based architectural framework for service creation.
References:
- The Wave Protocol, http://www.waveprotocol.org, July 5, 2009.
- The Google Wave Project, http://wave.google.com, July 5, 2009.
- The Google Wave Click-to-dial, http://googlewavedev.blogspot.com/2009/06/twiliobot-bringing-phone-conversations.html, July 31, 2009.
- P. Saint-Andre, Ed., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core,” IETF RFC 3920, October 2004.
- Michael Adeyeye (2008), A SIP Integrated Web Browser for HTTP Session Mobility and Multimedia Services, Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
A new feature in the TransferHTTP client – Stream to Call Service
The TransferHTTP 1.4 Web browser extension will soon be released. There is a likelihood that it will run in Firefox 3.x. I would like to have some testers to help test the extension before being released. However, the new feature in the client is “Stream to Call.” With Stream to Call, a caller could stream a media to a callee in place of a call. It is required that a call session is setup first before a Stream to Call option is chosen, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the SIP signalling involved in streaming a media to another web browser.
In order to distinguish the client services from the proxy services, the URL http://transferhttp.mozdev.org will contain only the TransferHTTP extension files (installer and documentation), while the URL http://transferhttp.berlios.de will contain only the TransferHTTP control services.
Localization of Microsoft Windows Vista into Nigerian Languages
I read an article online on the Localization (L10n) of the Microsoft OS Vista into three prominent Nigerian languages – Yoruba, Hausa, and Igbo. This is awesome. I was wondering if any tertiary institutions in Nigeria helped in accomplishing the task. I look forward to some students taking up the idea (L10n of FOSS, such as Apache, CUPS, Firefox, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice.org, Thunderbird, X Window System) into those languages as their projects. I am happy to help out.


