[Standards] Simple Jingle example(s) and spec(s) wanted

[Rachel Blackman]

On Feb 6, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Maybe we need to do a better job of showing developers what the  
> migration paths are. Maybe we need to do a better job of incenting  
> developers through code bounties (the XSF has the money, let's use  
> it for good). I'm open to any and all suggestions. But let's not  
> stick with broken extensions that don't really solve the problem at  
> hand, just because the extension is already defined. I don't want  
> to throw things out if they work just fine. But I also want to make  
> sure that we have working protocols, instead of half-working  
> extensions that lead to a poor user experience (as I think we have  
> right now with file transfer).

+1 as it's basically what I was trying to say.

That just, 'oh, well, we'll put a new file transfer XEP out' is all  
well and good, but that in the past we've never defined solid  
migration paths... and if this is handled the same way many past  
protocol-replacements have been, we'll basically have a lot of  
clients that stick to the old stream-profile S5B file transfer, and  
can't talk to newer clients.

This is a Bad Thing.  There needs to be some way to ensure people  
keep their implementations current.  Maybe a yearly certification  
process isn't it, but SOMETHING needs to happen.  I'm not addressing  
the technical points, since I don't know enough about the Jingle-FT  
to judge it; just saying, if we're going to replace file transfer, it  
needs to be done in some sort of sane, sensible method of migration.

Otherwise, if Adium can't send to Psi because Adium goes Jingle-FT  
and Psi stays stream-profile, you're going to reach a situation where  
we have people logging onto AIM just to send files to each other.   
Hence... yes.  Migration.  Planning.  Organization.  Something! :)

Really shutting up now. :)

-- 
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillianastra.com/