• Chris Remington@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 months 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
      5 months 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
          5 months 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
            5 months 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
              ·
              5 months 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.