4 ms·

"Laconica is built on PHP/MySQL open source software." Given all the hullabaloo about twiter scaling, rewrites, etc, I thought it would be clear by now that a

by aidanf 17y ago

"Laconica is built on PHP/MySQL open source software." Given all the hullabaloo about twiter scaling, rewrites, etc, I thought it would be clear by now that a database driven website is not a good architecture for twitter-like messaging system.

wmf 17y ago
A single instance of Laconica probably won't support millions of users, but the whole point IMO is to federate smaller Laconica sites rather than building a huge centralized monopoly.
- mg1313 17y ago
  That's an idea, in fact. Aggregate all those small players into a big one...and other new small players can join to the federation...
- moe 17y ago
  Can you say XMMP... Those who don't understand are doomed to re-invent. Poorly.
  - wmf 17y ago
    I was thinking more of SMTP. Twitter and Facebook may be the Compuserve and Genie of Web 2.0.
    - kragen 17y ago
      You know, SMTP supports instant messages: SEND FROM: in place of MAIL FROM:. Apparently an analogous facility (I forget if it was actually connected to SMTP) was one of the major reasons for the uptake of Emacs on Multics.
  - jerf 17y ago
    Unfortunately, the XMPP feature that is what Laconica should have been based on was only relatively recently specified and implementations are still stabilizing, which is a necessary step before we have clients that support it. I'm speaking specifically of "PubSub", where you can publish your updates and they get sent out only to subscribers. Note that twitter does not otherwise match a conventional IM message, nor does it match a conventional conference room. It does precisely match the PubSub use case, and I still hope to see something based on that. Laconica isn't wrong to ignore it, per se, but they will end up having to do (or have already done) a lot of very, very redundant specification as a result of ignoring it. (I'd think they'd still have been better off taking an existing XMPP server, fixing the pubsub to do what they want, and building from there.)
ldeva 17y ago
Then what would be a good architecture for such a service?

by aidanf 17y ago

wmf 17y ago

A single instance of Laconica probably won't support millions of users, but the whole point IMO is to federate smaller Laconica sites rather than building a huge centralized monopoly.

mg1313 17y ago
That's an idea, in fact. Aggregate all those small players into a big one...and other new small players can join to the federation...
moe 17y ago
Can you say XMMP... Those who don't understand are doomed to re-invent. Poorly.
- wmf 17y ago
  I was thinking more of SMTP. Twitter and Facebook may be the Compuserve and Genie of Web 2.0.
  - kragen 17y ago
    You know, SMTP supports instant messages: SEND FROM: in place of MAIL FROM:. Apparently an analogous facility (I forget if it was actually connected to SMTP) was one of the major reasons for the uptake of Emacs on Multics.
- jerf 17y ago
  Unfortunately, the XMPP feature that is what Laconica should have been based on was only relatively recently specified and implementations are still stabilizing, which is a necessary step before we have clients that support it. I'm speaking specifically of "PubSub", where you can publish your updates and they get sent out only to subscribers. Note that twitter does not otherwise match a conventional IM message, nor does it match a conventional conference room. It does precisely match the PubSub use case, and I still hope to see something based on that. Laconica isn't wrong to ignore it, per se, but they will end up having to do (or have already done) a lot of very, very redundant specification as a result of ignoring it. (I'd think they'd still have been better off taking an existing XMPP server, fixing the pubsub to do what they want, and building from there.)

ldeva 17y ago

Then what would be a good architecture for such a service?