• Chris Remington@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s my understanding that it will…I believe that’s, also, what it means when they (Sublinks developers) said it would be “Lemmy compatible”.

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That could also mean client API-compatible, so Lemmy apps would work with it, which doesn’t address federation.

          • PenguinCoder@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Pong. @mox@lemmy.sdf.org , in sublinks, the federation services are entirely separate from the API of the instance. So much separate, the federation services are written in a programming language called Golang. The API service is written in a programming language called Java.

            One aspect does not require or preclude the other with Sublinks.

            • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Indeed, protocol is independent from implementation language, but that isn’t the question at hand.

              Do you know whether Beehaw will still federate with the lemmyverse (and therefore the rest of us) after moving to Sublinks?

              • PenguinCoder@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                The current aim of Sublinks is Lemmy parity for V1 release. So yes, I do see Beehaw still federating with Lemmy instances at the on-set.