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 Fri, 22 Apr 2016 01:43:43 GMT
Yes.  Federation was always part of it at Google.  For example Google had been working with
companies like SAP and Novell to create things that leveraged with / integrated with Wave
from the beginning.  With the idea being that a company could use their own wave server with
their own employees, and then collaborate (like email or chat) with people in other companies
if they so desired.

That was part of the rationalization behind the centralized ownership of a Wave (that each
wave and an authoritative wave sever).  So for example if Company X created a Wave, then Company
X’s server would own it.  The could choose to share (federate) that with other users on
other servers, but the server at Company X, would still control who it was federating with
and would have the ownership of the concurrency control (mostly).

This model seems reasonable.  Its just we need to make sure people understand what it is,
and is not.  But, unless you wanted to change out the OT stack, there really is no way to
make it peer to peer.  The waves can certainly be distributed across many severs (sharded
or something).  But at any given time, a Wave is controlled by a single server all other servers
are subordinate in the federation model.

~Michael




On 4/21/16, 12:52 AM, "Evan Hughes" <ehugh1@gmail.com> wrote:

>I do see its purpose to allow non-users on this server to communicate with
>waves on another like how macfadden has said its not really decentralised.
>
>Back to bring the attention to the ticket, it has been open since the
>10/4/2016 (dd/mm/yyyy). Im not sure if a formal vote is needed but progress
>on the ticket would be nice.
>
>On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 at 17:15 Yuri Z <vega113@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the Federation was developed as part of the FedOne open source
>> project, but the original Google Wave (sandbox) server could federate with
>> FedOne servers.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:13 AM Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It was always intended to be part of it from what I remember, but I am
>> > not sure how far it got during Googles time.
>> > I think there was some federation, Google<>Pygowave(?) I think was up
>> > and running at one point.
>> > Google wanted Wave as a email replacement, so federation was a
>> > prerequisite.
>> >
>> > As far as modern federation goes, indeed, other then email Google
>> > hasn't got much federation going on. At least that i know of.
>> > But then, basically no companies do.
>> > Its SMTP. And in some cases XMPP. And thats it as far as I know.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site.
>> > http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 21 April 2016 at 07:26, Evan Hughes <ehugh1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > was federation apart of the original google wave or was integrated
>> during
>> > > the open source transition, because I dont exactly see google in using
>> > > federation other than "google apps for business".
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 at 14:20 Michael MacFadden <
>> > michael.macfadden@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> One comment I would chime in on here is..
>> > >>
>> > >> Claiming wave’s federation model is decentralized is actually a bit
>> of a
>> > >> stretch.  Every single Wave has an authoritative server.  This is
>> > typically
>> > >> the server on which the Wave was created.  All of the other servers
>> > >> participating in the federation have to send all deltas back to the
>> > >> authoritative server, and then those operations are processed and set
>> > out
>> > >> to other systems.
>> > >>
>> > >> In point of fact, if person A creates a Wave on server 1.  Then
>> person B
>> > >> and C join from server 2.  When person B types, the operation has to
>> go
>> > >> from B’s client to Server 2, then to Server 1, then back to Server
2,
>> > then
>> > >> to C’s client.  So even though B and C are on the same server, their
>> > >> collaboration goes through Server 1.
>> > >>
>> > >> Wave is only decentralized in the fact that 1) users can be locally
>> > >> authenticated to servers and a chain of trust is set up between them
>> as
>> > to
>> > >> the identity of users, and 2) that waves can be created anywhere so
>> the
>> > >> authoritative server for each wave could be different.
>> > >>
>> > >> However, with respect to a particular wave, the federation model is
>> very
>> > >> much centralized.  It is not decentralized in the same way that XMPP
>> and
>> > >> SMTP are.  This is actually a function of how the Wave OT algorithm
>> > works
>> > >> and not an issue with the transport or XMPP.
>> > >>
>> > >> ~Michael
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On 4/10/16, 4:14 AM, "Pablo Ojanguren" <pablojan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >I fully agree, federation is mandatory, and it's what makes wave
>> unique
>> > >> >from centralized technologies.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >I wonder what is the actual issue with federation... is it XMPP?
is
>> it
>> > the
>> > >> >implementation itself? is it the wave protocol design?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >2016-04-09 23:02 GMT+02:00 Yuri Z <vega113@gmail.com>:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> I am not sure we know how to do it right anyways.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:53 PM Michael MacFadden <
>> > >> >> michael.macfadden@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > 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