[JDEV] Timezone (summary)
quad at jabber.org
Mon Oct 11 18:08:45 CDT 1999
* Isotope2k at aol.com translated into ASCII [Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 12:30:39PM -0400][<0.f3714772.25336aaf at aol.com>]
> First off, I certainly hope that my last post wasn't considered a
> _dumb_ post. I'm only trying to help, and I certainly don't feel
> that it was noise.
Oh jeez, no! Summaries are wonderful and though a couple points were weird,
that is by no means a "dumb" post! I don't feel it was noise either!
> >We cannot assume TCP/IP and "normal" timestamping. Jabbertransport uses
> >TCP/IP and that's the extent of the reliablity issue we can go. etherx uses
> >TCP/IP, true, but udpx or 6782x might not.
> Again, my apologies, I thought TCP/IP could be assumed. This brings up
> issue for me though, and that is, what if a closed network runs IPX or some
> yet conceived protocol? Should we perhaps add a layer of abstraction in those
> codebases to seperate the delivery mechanism? Just a thought. I do realise
> would add a significant amount of overhead.
etherx (or rather, the JabberBox protocol) is reliable. Future protocols may
not be. Though, code wise, we're treating the system as "reliable", this may
not always be the case.
The abstraction layer you want is, etherx! (*x) Currently transports connect
via TCP/IP, however in 0.7 a form of IPC is being used to remove the network
> >> UNLESS the sender is traversing timezones between messages.
> >Happens to me. Happened to jer. It happens all the time.
> How then can we rely on any timezone information supplied by the client?
The "solution" idea proposed was just to have everyone run with UTC and thus
not worry about passed TZ information.
> >> I think it would be useful if we constructed this discussion in a more
> >> high-level manner.
> >Already have. You're just reiterating.
> Taken as a whole, I suppose we have. My hope was that we
> could do it in a clearer, more intuitive manner. Perhaps my reiteration
> (and Waleed's summaries) was an attempt in that direction. Clearly restating
> the issues has been very useful to me in the past in eliminating redundant
> discussions and streamlining decision making. Upon re-reading your proposal
> I can see that we are futher along than I thought. Again, my apologies are
> for contributing to redundancy.
You summarized, and I was a bit harsh. Large numbers of useless (julian?)
posts are painful for me.
> Back to lurker mode...
Don't! You contribute, and contribute well! As a team, we need more people
> Christopher Atkins
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the JDev