as previously stated I +1 the removal of the current implementation in source form from the repo. If your unable to do this yourself Yuri I'd gladly make a pull request/patch for you?
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 at 11:43 Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. Federation was always part of it at Google. For example Google had > been working with companies like SAP and Novell to create things that > leveraged with / integrated with Wave from the beginning. With the idea > being that a company could use their own wave server with their own > employees, and then collaborate (like email or chat) with people in other > companies if they so desired. > > That was part of the rationalization behind the centralized ownership of a > Wave (that each wave and an authoritative wave sever). So for example if > Company X created a Wave, then Company X’s server would own it. The could > choose to share (federate) that with other users on other servers, but the > server at Company X, would still control who it was federating with and > would have the ownership of the concurrency control (mostly). > > This model seems reasonable. Its just we need to make sure people > understand what it is, and is not. But, unless you wanted to change out > the OT stack, there really is no way to make it peer to peer. The waves > can certainly be distributed across many severs (sharded or something). > But at any given time, a Wave is controlled by a single server all other > servers are subordinate in the federation model. > > ~Michael > > > > > On 4/21/16, 12:52 AM, "Evan Hughes" <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >I do see its purpose to allow non-users on this server to communicate with > >waves on another like how macfadden has said its not really decentralised. > > > >Back to bring the attention to the ticket, it has been open since the > >10/4/2016 (dd/mm/yyyy). Im not sure if a formal vote is needed but > progress > >on the ticket would be nice. > > > >On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 at 17:15 Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 <darkfl...@gmail.com> > >> 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 <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? > >> > >> >> > >>> > > >> > >> >> > >>> > > >> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >
