[jdev] GSoC - IRC-to-MUC bridge

LRN lrn1986 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 19 16:44:17 CDT 2008


Carlo v. Loesch wrote:
> Tobias Markmann typeth:
> | I proposed this idea and this kind of gateway because it won't harm
> | IRC users and will enable jabber users to connect to a certain
>
> it doesn't harm them if they get the *option* of having jabber
> rosters, transports and all that jazz from within their existing
> irc experience.
>
> | protocol and that's it. Though of course there is still the
> | possibility that the IRC people with their little egos won't like
> | that. ;)
>
> we have seen similar amounts of adversion to innovation not
> only from irc people. it's a pretty generic human trait.
>
> LRN: psyced simply doesn't load any of the PSYC code if noone
> is using it, so there is no need to separate it from anything.
> the work lies in enhancing the thing and getting it to work
> with a billion different flavors of ircd.
>
>
>    
PSYC is out of scope of "IRC-to-MUC component" project. The idea behind 
the project, as i understand it, is that xmpp protocol is superior to 
IRC, and that it would be good to have a bridge back to IRC from xmpp 
server (from MUC room exactly) for backward compatibility. And it is 
proposed to do so by making a component for xmpp server. "Component" 
means that this project is generally simpler/smaller than the whole 
server. And that project is especially made to work with xmpp server and 
do the bridging, nothing more. Morphing psyced into an xmpp componen 
would go as a downgrading, and that's not something you have in mind, i 
hope. While having a 'normal' (compiled with only IRC and Jabber 
support) psyced (with patches to enchant IRC-to-MUC compatibility and 
adaptations for different daemons) working as an xmpp server component 
is something i didn't had in mind when i planned to work on this project 
(i'm not saying it is completely unacceptable, but it sounds odd to me).

P.S. psyced is written in LPC.



More information about the JDev mailing list