incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Should we remove Federation?
Date Sat, 09 Apr 2016 20:53:29 GMT
I agree,  I don’t think any one was talking about removing federation as a goal.




On 4/9/16, 6:34 AM, "Thomas Wrobel" <darkflame@gmail.com> wrote:

>Oh, if its only the current implementation, sure if its not got value.
>Being merely a onlooker its been a long time since I have looked at
>the codebase - but would removing even a broken implementation cause
>any issues as regards to putting a new implementation in in the
>future? That is, does it serve a purpose even as a ''placeholder'' to
>prevent other aspects of the code being made in a way as to make
>federation awkward later?
>
>
>--
>http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
>http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
>
>
>On 8 April 2016 at 00:10, Evan Hughes <ehugh1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Removing the current implementation is fine, I see no problems with that,
>> aslong as theres enough documents to be able to recreate it from spec.
>> On 08/04/2016 2:22 AM, "Yuri Z" <vega113@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot agree more, Wave is about federation. But, the current
>>> implementation is broken, hard to fix and never worked fine. We need to
>>> think about better implementation. And there's no point to keep current
>>> broken implementation that can't work.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:55 PM Dave Ball <wave@glark.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I only exist in the peanut gallery, but this reflects my feelings too.
>>> > Wave isn't wave without federation... I wish I had the time to help :-(
>>> >
>>> > Dave
>>> >
>>> > On 07/04/16 16:42, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>>> > > I'm not sure there's any point in wave without federation frankly.
>>> > > I supported wave because I didn't want the net turning into "facebook
>>> > > protocols" and "google protocols" etc.  We need new emails. Protocols
>>> > > that allow people on different servers to communicate, not protocols
>>> > > trying to get everyone on the same companies server.
>>> > > I still fear a future of incompatibility. Of people having to be on
>>> > > server X because their friends are all on server X (and thus server
X
>>> > > has no incentive to ever get better). Email is getting increasingly
>>> > > dated, and there's not much else federated out there even today. As
>>> > > the web grows into real-space applications, there will be probably
>>> > > even greater need for open communications standards.
>>> > > While the comparison of email interface wise might have harmed wave
>>> > > somewhat from a user expectation standpoint, I do think the same needs
>>> > > are there - a new federated, open, protocol to deal with today's web.
>>> > > - sigh -
>>> > > --
>>> > > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
>>> > > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 7 April 2016 at 17:25, Yuri Z <vega113@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> Hi
>>> > >> Currently the federation is broken and requires a significant effort
>>> to
>>> > >> fix. Moreover, it never worked perfectly and always was a kind
of
>>> Proof
>>> > Of
>>> > >> Concept version. I doubt we can improve the current implementation
to
>>> be
>>> > >> something stable.
>>> > >> Therefore I suggest to remove from Wave source all code and
>>> dependencies
>>> > >> related to Federation.
>>> > >> Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> >
>>>


Mime
View raw message