|
From: | Melvin Carvalho |
Subject: | Re: [Social-discuss] P2P or server approach? |
Date: | Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:48:30 +0100 |
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Blaine Cook <address@hidden> wrote:I second this. You can mix hub&spoke with P2P. In fact, this is what
> On 24 March 2010 17:06, Sylvan Heuser <address@hidden> wrote:
>> As I see it, we have two approaches between we must decide.
>>
>> The pure P2P approach:
>> *snip*
>>
>> The network of independent servers with small user groups approach:
>> *snip*
>
> I'd second the idea that there are hybrid approaches that are readily
> possible. I think even in the hybrid case, you need a shared
> addressing space. The reason you need a simple, shared addressing
> space is so that people can add each-other on contact lists. Once you
> have that, then two people who meet at a bar or on a bus can exchange
> contact information.
we aim to do in onesocialweb and is straightforwad using XMPP.
My identity could either be:
Hub&spoke: address@hidden
In this case I delegate to the server the job of managing my profile, etc...
P2P: address@hidden/me
In this case, the work is delegated to a resource (could be a bot, my
laptop, a mobile phone..). The server only acts as a router. The good
thing with this last point is that you can use any existing XMPP
account tomorrow with OSW. And yes, you could even drop the /me part
and have XMPP Disco take care of telling the other end that your
social networking stuff is handled by a resource called /me. So it is
transparent to the user.
Not sure how this would translate in a Webfinger/WebID world...
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |