incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Should we remove Federation?
Date Thu, 21 Apr 2016 05:26:14 GMT
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