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.macfad...@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" <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? > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >
