No Meta-Jabber

Dan DeMaggio dmag at
Tue Jan 5 09:16:20 CST 1999

I finally got jabber working. I didn't notice the server/jabber directory
(you have to compile and run jabber.transport in addition to jabberbox).
I'm not sure having 2 'server' processes is a great idea, but I do like the
idea of 'pluggable transports'. I don't think anyone would want to unplug
the main protocol, but people will want to disable ICQ/AIM addresses: If I
run my own server (and don't use ICQ), then I don't need the ICQ transport
at all. (If you are using ICQ, then YOUR server will do ICQ for you).

> you should have a central meta-server which
> keeps track of other servers.

Yes and no. Yes, it would be cool for a list of public servers (like public
freenets, they will give you jabber accounts). But on the other hand, we
don't need to list ALL servers. For instance, if I run a server on my
cablemodem linux box, I don't want random people talking to it. It would
only have my account on it, so nobody else needs to know (except my
friends). I wouldn't want my jabber server or address listed in a public
list any more than I want my e-mail on a 'meta-email list'. Since jabber is
distributed, there is no need for a meta  server.

You might want a meta server for 'phone-book' like address lookups, but I
think there are enough phonebooks out there that we don't need another. We
could standardize a jabber URL, so we can click on
"jabber://" to start a conversation.

> The protocol is mostly just for carrying content, not tech details like
> ports/etc...

But without standard ports, trying to contact bob at won't
work very well.


More information about the JDev mailing list