It was always intended to be part of it from what I remember, but I am not sure how far it got during Googles time. I think there was some federation, Google<>Pygowave(?) I think was up and running at one point. Google wanted Wave as a email replacement, so federation was a prerequisite.
As far as modern federation goes, indeed, other then email Google hasn't got much federation going on. At least that i know of. But then, basically no companies do. Its SMTP. And in some cases XMPP. And thats it as far as I know. -- http://lostagain.nl <-- our company site. http://fanficmaker.com <-- our, really,really, bad story generator. On 21 April 2016 at 07:26, Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
