I think the Federation was developed as part of the FedOne open source project, but the original Google Wave (sandbox) server could federate with FedOne servers.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:13 AM Thomas Wrobel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> > > 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" <[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? > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >
