A few people have mentioned [1] to me that the Recent Changes IRC channels are going to be shut down in favor of the new Socket.IO based stream [2].
Does anyone know if this is anything more than a rumor?
//Ed
[1] https://github.com/edsu/wikistream/issues/42 [2] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCStream
It is going to be at Some Point In The Far Future, and there will be a large amount of notice given, and possibly a less reliable IRC bridge running on labs.
But no concrete plans at the moment. You should still migrate, however :)
That wasn't the most compelling argument for migrating. But thanks for the response:
//Ed
On Apr 7, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Yuvi Panda yuvipanda@gmail.com wrote:
It is going to be at Some Point In The Far Future, and there will be a large amount of notice given, and possibly a less reliable IRC bridge running on labs.
But no concrete plans at the moment. You should still migrate, however :)
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
That wasn't the most compelling argument for migrating. But thanks for the response:
Heh. The compelling arguments for migration to me are:
1. This gives you structured JSON, no need to futz around with IRC colors. This is a big one, I think 2. Easier to extend from the mediawiki side, so more events should be easier to add. 3. Far easier to consume rcstream than IRC Feeds (Websockets vs IRC) 4. Running our own IRC server is not the most fun thing in the world, and our ops team would like to not have to keep doing that forever.
I find (1) and (3) most compelling - look at the client examples on https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCStream#Client, they're vastly simpler than similar examples for IRC
I understand the reason to use /rc if I were creating a new application. I don't understand the rationale for spending the time to switch over an existing application though.
Having diffs (or other new data) as part of the stream would be a big reason to switch however.
I apologize for using wiki-research for this conversation. It seems more suited for wikipedia-tech in hindsight.
On Apr 7, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Yuvi Panda yuvipanda@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote: That wasn't the most compelling argument for migrating. But thanks for the response:
Heh. The compelling arguments for migration to me are:
- This gives you structured JSON, no need to futz around with IRC
colors. This is a big one, I think 2. Easier to extend from the mediawiki side, so more events should be easier to add. 3. Far easier to consume rcstream than IRC Feeds (Websockets vs IRC) 4. Running our own IRC server is not the most fun thing in the world, and our ops team would like to not have to keep doing that forever.
I find (1) and (3) most compelling - look at the client examples on https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCStream#Client, they're vastly simpler than similar examples for IRC
-- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
Ed,
I think you might have misunderstood Yuvi's first response.
and possibly a less reliable IRC bridge
running on labs.
I believe he meant that, rather than shutting down the IRC feed entirely, we'd write a bridge between RCStream and an IRC server so that laggards who insist on using IRC don't see their tools go down. But that bridge will inevitably be less stable than RCStream -- which using common/standard formats (JSON) on top of a standard protocol (websockets).
Really, RCStream is what the IRC feed ought to have been -- and probably would have been if those standards were available at the time of its construction. RCStream solves the same problem better.
-Aaron
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Yuvi Panda yuvipanda@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
That wasn't the most compelling argument for migrating. But thanks for
the response:
Heh. The compelling arguments for migration to me are:
- This gives you structured JSON, no need to futz around with IRC
colors. This is a big one, I think 2. Easier to extend from the mediawiki side, so more events should be easier to add. 3. Far easier to consume rcstream than IRC Feeds (Websockets vs IRC) 4. Running our own IRC server is not the most fun thing in the world, and our ops team would like to not have to keep doing that forever.
I find (1) and (3) most compelling - look at the client examples on https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCStream#Client, they're vastly simpler than similar examples for IRC
-- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
As we're having a technical discussion now anyway, any thoughts on Server-Sent Events (SSE), a W3C Recommendation [1], compared to WebSockets, a W3C Candidate Recommendation [2]? SSE is a match made in heaven for open, one-way streaming APIs. Support in browsers is solid, with the prominent exception being MSIE (not sure about Spartan): http://caniuse.com/#search=server-sent%20events. Fair enough, WebSockets wins implementation-wise: http://caniuse.com/#search=websockets. Also check a comparison of WebSockets vs. SSE: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/eventsource/basics/#toc-introduction-.... What do you think?
Cheers, Tom
-- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/eventsource/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/websockets/
On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Really, RCStream is what the IRC feed ought to have been -- and probably would have been if those standards were available at the time of its construction. RCStream solves the same problem better.
Actually, I understood the first time and I agree with this assessment. I still don’t find it to be a compelling reason to go and do the work. But it probably would’ve taken about as long as it has to try to get a clear answer out of you all :-)
//Ed
It'd take equivalent time? So, just like it took you <6 hours to go from having a question to having answers from multiple people, both volunteer and staff, it'd take you <6 hours to migrate all of your services over to this new system?
Woah. You must be quite the engineer.
On 7 April 2015 at 16:42, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Really, RCStream is what the IRC feed ought to have been -- and probably would have been if those standards were available at the time of its construction. RCStream solves the same problem better.
Actually, I understood the first time and I agree with this assessment. I still don’t find it to be a compelling reason to go and do the work. But it probably would’ve taken about as long as it has to try to get a clear answer out of you all :-)
//Ed
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Oh! Well if you understood Yuvi right away, it seems that you *did* get a clear answer out of "us all".
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Really, RCStream is what the IRC feed ought to have been -- and probably
would have been if those standards were available at the time of its construction. RCStream solves the same problem better.
Actually, I understood the first time and I agree with this assessment. I still don’t find it to be a compelling reason to go and do the work. But it probably would’ve taken about as long as it has to try to get a clear answer out of you all :-)
//Ed
Ok, my apologies if this is coming out garbled. Here’s a list of things I think I’ve learned as part of this discussion:
1) currently there is no plan to do away with the IRC stream
//Ed
On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Oh! Well if you understood Yuvi right away, it seems that you *did* get a clear answer out of "us all".
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Really, RCStream is what the IRC feed ought to have been -- and probably would have been if those standards were available at the time of its construction. RCStream solves the same problem better.
Actually, I understood the first time and I agree with this assessment. I still don’t find it to be a compelling reason to go and do the work. But it probably would’ve taken about as long as it has to try to get a clear answer out of you all :-)
//Ed
Well, if you got all your learning out of the way in the first email, I'm really confused as to what you thought a backhanded "none of you are helping" would do 3 hours later. You asked an honest question, you got a very reasonable and perfectly friendly reply, and then decided, I guess, that the thread really wouldn't be complete without denigrating the people who were trying to help. I'd like to expect more from list subscribers than that.
On 7 April 2015 at 16:50, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
Ok, my apologies if this is coming out garbled. Here’s a list of things I think I’ve learned as part of this discussion:
- currently there is no plan to do away with the IRC stream
//Ed
On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Oh! Well if you understood Yuvi right away, it seems that you *did* get a clear answer out of "us all".
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Aaron Halfaker ahalfaker@wikimedia.org wrote:
Really, RCStream is what the IRC feed ought to have been -- and probably would have been if those standards were available at the time of its construction. RCStream solves the same problem better.
Actually, I understood the first time and I agree with this assessment. I still don’t find it to be a compelling reason to go and do the work. But it probably would’ve taken about as long as it has to try to get a clear answer out of you all :-)
//Ed
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, if you got all your learning out of the way in the first email, I'm really confused as to what you thought a backhanded "none of you are helping" would do 3 hours later. You asked an honest question, you got a very reasonable and perfectly friendly reply, and then decided, I guess, that the thread really wouldn't be complete without denigrating the people who were trying to help. I'd like to expect more from list subscribers than that.
I apologize if what I said was denigrating. I can see how it could’ve been seen that way, and I regret it. I sincerely appreciate the help that has been offered.
And you’re right to expect more of list subscribers. I’ll do better.
//Ed
Thanks; that's most appreciated. For what it's worth, I'll try not to instinctively go at anyone who's mean to Yuvi.[0]
[0] Only I get to be mean to Yuvi. Me and whoever was cruel enough to make him run Labs ;p
On 7 April 2015 at 16:58, Ed Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, if you got all your learning out of the way in the first email, I'm really confused as to what you thought a backhanded "none of you are helping" would do 3 hours later. You asked an honest question, you got a very reasonable and perfectly friendly reply, and then decided, I guess, that the thread really wouldn't be complete without denigrating the people who were trying to help. I'd like to expect more from list subscribers than that.
I apologize if what I said was denigrating. I can see how it could’ve been seen that way, and I regret it. I sincerely appreciate the help that has been offered.
And you’re right to expect more of list subscribers. I’ll do better.
//Ed
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org