Thanks! ;) 2016-04-10 13:55 GMT+02:00 E. Levi Allen <[email protected]>:
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > (try to log in) > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM Pablo Ojanguren <[email protected]> > > > 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 <[email protected]>: > > >> > > >> > 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 < > [email protected]> > > >> > 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 <[email protected]>: > > >> > > > > >> > > > 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 < > > >> [email protected]> > > >> > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > >> 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 < > > >> > [email protected]> > > >> > > > > > 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 <[email protected]>: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I am not sure we know how to do it right anyways. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:53 PM Michael MacFadden < > > >> > > > > > > > [email protected]> 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" < > > [email protected]> > > >> > > 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 < > > [email protected]> > > >> > > 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" <[email protected] > > > > >> > 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 < > > >> > [email protected] > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 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 < > > >> [email protected]> > > >> > > > > 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? > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
