incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Should we remove Federation?
Date Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:26:59 GMT
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 it is not XMPP as an idea, but the current implementation uses outdated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