incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "E. Levi Allen" <e.levi.al...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Should we remove Federation?
Date Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:55:18 GMT
Could you add me as well. I don't have the ability to assign.

*E. Levi Allen*
Social Media Strategist | HeardWork LLC
Social Media Strategist | The Leather Foundation
Contractor, The Talener Group

In real open source, you have the right to control your own destiny. –
Linus Torvalds

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:54 AM, Yuri Z <vega113@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, for some reason you were not added to project contributors. Added you
> now and assigned the issue.
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM Yuri Z <vega113@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (try to log in)
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM Pablo Ojanguren <pablojan@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Sure! thanks
> >>
> >> (please could you assign it to me! I don't see how can I do it myself?)
> >>
> >> 2016-04-10 13:37 GMT+02:00 E. Levi Allen <e.levi.allen@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Created: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WAVE-437
> >> > Pablo, I suggest you have this assigned to you while you try out
> >> > matrix.org.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > *E. Levi Allen*
> >> > Social Media Strategist | HeardWork LLC
> >> > Social Media Strategist | The Leather Foundation
> >> > Contractor, The Talener Group
> >> >
> >> > In real open source, you have the right to control your own destiny. –
> >> > Linus Torvalds
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Pablo Ojanguren <pablojan@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Probably an alternative for XMPP could be  matrix.org, at first
> >> sight,
> >> > it
> >> > > seems right for wave federation. I could try it.
> >> > >
> >> > > 2016-04-10 13:26 GMT+02:00 Yuri Z <vega113@gmail.com>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Well, I don't know. We were stuck for some time with broken code,
> >> and I
> >> > > > think it would be better to remove the code that doesn't work.
It
> is
> >> > not
> >> > > > deleted from Git history off course. But yeah, we can surely
open
> >> such
> >> > a
> >> > > > ticket.
> >> > > > Can you please go ahead and do it?
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WAVE
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:22 PM E. Levi Allen <
> >> e.levi.allen@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > What are some XMPP alternatives which are well documented?
> Should
> >> we
> >> > > > create
> >> > > > > a ticket to investigate this before making a decision?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > *E. Levi Allen*
> >> > > > > Social Media Strategist | HeardWork LLC
> >> > > > > Social Media Strategist | The Leather Foundation
> >> > > > > Contractor, The Talener Group
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > In real open source, you have the right to control your
own
> >> destiny.
> >> > –
> >> > > > > Linus Torvalds
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:20 AM, Yuri Z <vega113@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > it is not XMPP as an idea, but the current implementation
uses
> >> > > outdated
> >> > > > > > XMPP libraries and if we want to fix - we would need
to find a
> >> way
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > re-implement parts of code with new tools. Also, even
in
> current
> >> > > > > > implementation - Federation was in Proof Of Concept
quality,
> >> never
> >> > > > worked
> >> > > > > > flawlessly. So, the question - is there someone who
wants to
> fix
> >> > it,
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > > should we remove the current implementation since it
is broken
> >> and
> >> > > > maybe
> >> > > > > > think about other ideas besides XMPP.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:14 PM 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message