Could you add me as well. I don't have the ability to assign. *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 4:54 AM, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, for some reason you were not added to project contributors. Added you > now and assigned the issue. > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > (try to log in) > > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@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.al...@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 <pablo...@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 <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? > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
