[Standards] Jingle "implementability"

[Robert Quattlebaum]

On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Greg Hudson wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:53 -0800, Robert Quattlebaum wrote:
>
>> What if these plug-ins are actually separate processes? Imagine if  
>> you
>> were using some sort of XMPP client daemon, for example. In such a
>> setup, you would have separate processes for file transfer,
>> audio/video chat, roster, etc. With how Jingle is currently  
>> specified,
>> only one process would be allowed to do Jingle stuff at a time. So  
>> you
>> could video chat, but not while being able to do file transfers. You
>> could use file transfer, but not be able to do video chat.
>
> The Jingle process could itself have plugins (subprocesses again) to
> handle a/v or file transfer or whatever.

Sounds like you are suggesting an RPC API for Jingle, which would be  
much more complex to implement than just RPC for XMPP alone. The need  
for all of that complexity would be completely eliminated with a small  
addition to the existing protocol.

__________________
Robert Quattlebaum
Jabber: darco at deepdarc.com
eMail:  darco at deepdarc.com
www:    http://www.deepdarc.com/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080130/fe5e0968/attachment.htm