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 11:22:02 GMT
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 it is not XMPP as an idea, but the current implementation uses outdated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