3 ms·
IDs, though. Like, in the abstract, I agree with you completely. But IDs.
by heavenlyhash 8y ago
IDs, though.
Like, in the abstract, I agree with you completely.
But IDs.
- rakoo 8y agoI don't know, IRC in its current form doesn't have any message-ids and yet seems to be working fine.
- heavenlyhash 8y agoIt also does not and never did support consistent history or multi-device. And it never will, because having some way to identify a message is a prerequisite for even phrasing the question "does device_foo have message_x synced yet?" Bouncers don't count. They reintroduce centralization as a way to solve the problem. It's a solution, of a sort, but it's a fairly poor one if your original aim was decentralization. And "working fine" is also frankly a bit of a stretch, isn't it? I can't count how many times I've seen a "netsplit" in freenode or the other IRC networks. That means messages aren't delivered. It's so common we have a word for it: "netsplit". I shouldn't dunk on IRC too much, because at least it's honest about itself for being simple, and there's a virtue in that. But if we were to construct a statement like "IRC manages reliable message delivery without any concept of message IDs", then that would be false (or technically, vacuous), because it doesn't manage reliable message delivery.