[JDEV] File Transfer Proposals

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Fri Feb 15 18:47:14 CST 2002

Long wordy replies like this are exactly what I'm trying to get away
from. I want a quick, short bullet list of what's wrong with current

As far as I can tell, your entire message boils down to the "PASS
doesn't allow more permanent file caching" -- the rest of it is about
lack of standardization... which happens because no one is agreeing on
how to do file transfer, which is what I will slowly get it.

I don't want suggested systems. I want to know what is wrong. In less
than 50 words per point. Instead of many people posting many proposals,
let's figure out what the problem is first.


On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 19:33, David Sutton wrote:
> Hi all,
>   I think part of the problem is that HTTP/FTP OOB + PASS is good up to
> a point, but there needs to be an additional part, which is what I was
> trying to address. I know of someone on the jdev conference area (I
> think its Simon, but its late and i'm half asleep) who is using PASS for
> streaming data. This is all fine and good for small things, but not
> random files like many people on IMs like to throw at their contact list
> .. and OOB would be the communication mechanism between the server
> software and the clients, but I can see a lot of potential wastage of
> bandwidth if thats all you use. Take the person who sends a file to 5
> people all on the same jabber server .. only one upload was required if
> you take a system like the one I suggested, and the users don't have to
> be online. It keeps the files, which could be anything, seperate from
> the users data on the jabber server. It gives a standard for other
> people to work with. HTTP/FTP OOB as it stands basically says that i'm
> going to somehow upload a file somewhere, and tell you where it is ..
> what I'm trying for is saying 'where' the file is going, and how you can
> go collect it.
> The system I suggested would not be any good for things like streamed
> voice or images, but then again, thats another reason for having PASS.
> David
> --
> jid: peregrine at jabber.sys.legend.net.uk
> ps: if you tried to add me in the last hour or two, I got the request,
> but gabber nose-dived on me and I wasn't running in debug so don't have
> your jid
> -- rest of included message --
> On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 23:47, Julian Missig wrote:
> > On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 18:33, Julian Missig wrote:
> > > A lot of people have been talking about all sorts of ways to do file
> > > trasnfer. Before temas and I (and others) start working on making JEPs
> > > out of the current file transfer implementations, I want to know what's
> > > wrong with them.
> > > 
> > > So my question is: What is wrong with the current HTTP/FTP OOB + PASS
> > > solution?
> > > 
> > > Currently the list is:
> > > - limited to HTTP/FTP (need a better way to indicate protocols
> > > supported, possibly browse?)
> > > - PASS doesn't allow more permanent file caching
> > > - lack of documentation
> > > - lack of implementation
> > 
> > And before anyone says anything, by lack of implementation I mean that
> > it's not extremely widely implemented, in fact I'm not aware of any PASS
> > client implementations yet. However, jabber.org does have PASS support
> > and some clients already do HTTP/FTP OOB.

More information about the JDev mailing list