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 11:49:53 GMT
(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 outdated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