Re: [Social-discuss] PHP-Based GNU Social structure

[Ted Smith]

I don't know if my previous message sent, so I'll send it again
(basically).

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:55 -0400, Matt Lee wrote:
> On 03/29/10 13:50, Ted Smith wrote:
> 
> > The contention here isn't the UI. Everyone agrees that a web UI would be
> > nice, as would a desktop-based UI. People disagree on the implementation
> > of the core as a GLAMP application versus a conventional daemon. But if
> > we accept the duplicated effort, there's no reason not to have both.
> 
> Not everyone can run a daemon, so we have to go with the best thing for
> everyone.
> 

More people can run a daemon than can run a GLAMP stack. From the point
of view of the user who does not wish to install a local instance of GNU
Social, both models are equal - the daemon can have a PHP-based web
interface that is identical to that of a completely GLAMP application.
From the point of view of a user who does wish to install software
locally, the daemon is better, as it only entails installing and
securing one program, as opposed to an entire GLAMP stack.

From my original email in this thread:


> I think that the best design structure is one such that there is a core,
> which handles interactions between nodes, and a user interface, which
> communicates with the core over a defined protocol. This is inspired by
> the structure of the Deluge BitTorrent client[1], and the GNUnet
> system[2].

The daemon we're referring to in this email is the core. The UI can be
anything that communicates with the core (over a UNIX socket on the same
host, or TCP remotely). **That can be a GLAMP application serving a
web-based interface.** From the point of view of the user who just wants
to go to a website, both the core-daemon/UI-client model and the
monolithic GLAMP application are equivalent.

The reason why I said:


> Everyone agrees that a web UI would be nice, as would a desktop-based
> UI.

...is because we seem to have a consensus on what UIs are necessary - a
PHP-based web UI would be nice for users who don't want to install
things, and a desktop client would be nice for users who do.

There seems to have been a misunderstanding and I hope this email has
helped.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part