In particular you can checkout this h ttps://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-difference-between-matrix-and-xmpp <https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-difference-between-matrix-and-xmpp>
2016-04-10 13:33 GMT+02:00 Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com>: > 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 <vega...@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.al...@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 <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 outdated 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? >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
