4 ms·
The post did mention this: > We could run the bridge somewhere relatively safe - e.g. the user’s client What is the advantage of having a server-side bridge t
by uncomputation 5y ago
The post did mention this:
> We could run the bridge somewhere relatively safe - e.g. the user’s client
What is the advantage of having a server-side bridge then? Just do everything client-side.
- Arathorn 5y agoClientside bridges are hard to run as mobile OSes don’t like background apps due to the risk on battery life. So if you installed a little shim WhatsApp client which speaks to the newly open WA APIs and relays everything back and forth to Matrix, getting it to run reliably could be fun.
- larma 5y agoThe complexity of a whole protocol and running a client for it (which is effectively what you are doing when running bridges locally) is much higher than just doing the necessary part (e2ee) on the client. Also, you might be unable to run such bridge in a web client because the protocol is not based on cors-enabled http/websocket APIs.
- uncomputation 5y agoI see, thanks.