[standards-jig] NEW JEP: Inband Bytestream (JEP-0047)

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Mon Sep 30 11:30:27 CDT 2002


Some of this I see depending on the situation though.  Take avatars for
example.  If we utilize pubsub they are easy to propogate with a more
clear context than inband transfer.  I guess what I'm asking for is use
cases.  Why would I use this rather than a more refined mechanism for a
new protocol?

--temas


On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 05:10:02AM -0600, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Richard Dobson wrote:
> > > I want to remind the discussion of the karma settings, which can be a very
> > > annoying issue for transmitting data as "inband" data.
> >
> > Ah yes almost forgot about that, thats another spanner in the works, this
> > probably needs to be done over a different connection to the server then, to
> > a port specially for it that has higher karma settings, that will also help
> > with the problem of people sending inband when the server admin does not
> > want to allow it because they can simply not supply this port and set the
> > karma appropriately so the low levels of messages and presence etc will get
> > though but as soon as someone tries to do a inband transfer it will bring it
> > to a halt.
> 
> Don't you see though? This is exactly the reason the JEP is written like
> this. The whole point of the JEP is to address inband bytestreams with
> small payloads. In fact, I would argue that the previous discussion about
> encoding mechanisms is a waste of time. If you want to send something
> inband, then you will have to deal with the fact that it will get larger
> during trnasport, as a result of BASE64-encoding, and that karma will slow
> make it more painful. The point of the JEP is not the end-all, be-all file
> transfer JEP, but to address sending small icons and such inbound, where
> going through the trouble of setting up another socket isn't worth it.
> 
> In this situation, its more cost effective to just send the file inbound.
> However, in most situations, its more cost effective to send the file OOB,
> since you won't have things like karma limiting your speed.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> bs.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20020930/f306dee7/attachment.pgp


More information about the Standards-JIG mailing list