incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Evan Hughes <wisebald...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Should we remove Federation?
Date Sun, 24 Apr 2016 04:14:52 GMT
as previously stated I +1 the removal of the current implementation in
source form from the repo. If your unable to do this yourself Yuri I'd
gladly make a pull request/patch for you?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 at 11:43 Michael MacFadden <michael.macfadden@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message