• Ananace@lemmy.ananace.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    I’m holding off on Fluxer until they decide how they’re going to implement federation, since the designs they’ve communicated publicly so far have all seemed like they prioritize siloing and putting excessive load on self-hosted nodes.
    Their first proposed solution would’ve required each self-hosted server to be able to handle every user on every other server in the network - a proposal which they’ve since scrubbed from their page.
    The latest proposal I can find at least speaks about aggregating connections through the users server, so it’s not as insane (Only requiring each self-hosted server to be able to handle requests from every other server on the network). But it still forbids intelligent caching, and instead seems to consider recommending the use of cloudflare to reduce the load from their design to be a good solution.

    • kokomo@reddit.kokomo.cloud
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I’m happy that they are letting a open discussion on federation happen in their fluxer developers channel, they want to get it right, so slow and steady is the path they are taking. It’s a high priority in their roadmap on github

    • u_tamtam@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’m holding off on Fluxer until they decide how they’re going to implement federation

      Seems wise. They seem competent in the front-end/client space and complete amateurs in the (difficult) protocol space. There is no example of successful tech (that I know of) that successfully added federation/P2P after the fact. It’s not an afterthought, it probably won’t ever happen.