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 <vega...@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 it is not XMPP as an idea, but the current implementation uses outdated 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 <pablo...@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 <vega...@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.macfad...@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" <darkfl...@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 <ehu...@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" <vega...@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 <w...@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 <vega...@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? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
