[jdev] Message sending performance XEP-0124
ranglani.vaibhav at gmail.com
Sat Jul 2 09:56:56 UTC 2016
Thanks for the inputs Florian.
This question is then related to the deployment side. Should I proxy the
nginx server to ejabberd port 5222? If yes, then can somebody point to a
post where this has been explained?
Also wouldn't directly exposing port 5222 to the internet cause security
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
> On 01.07.2016 16:22, Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
> > For reliability requirements over wireless connections: don't use BOSH;
> > do use Stream Management (XEP-0198)
> Exactly. And if you want the BOSH advantage over XMPP's TCP binding,
> i.e., using standard HTTP(S) ports, then use XMPP's WebSocket binding
> (RFC 7395) + Stream Management.
> Some background to this thread:
> I have not much experience with BOSH as I don't/seldom use it. I've
> merged Smack's BOSH branch when I took over Smack and fixed a few
> things, but the code should be considered unmaintained.
> I wonder if BOSH is suitable for mobile environments. In my experience
> those environments require being able to check the underlying TCP
> connection for liveness, which is not trivial when using BOSH I imagine.
> Using the BOSH Technique in mobile environments could cause serious UX
> issues if the first connection hangs in the long-polling state because
> the TCP connection broke down silently.
> WebSocket doesn't have this issues, and provides the same feature set as
> BOSH when used with Stream Management. I think it is the future and that
> there is no real reason, besides implementation availability, to use
> BOSH any more. Sadly there is no support for XMPP over WebSocket in
> Smack (yet).
> - Florian
> JDev mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe at jabber.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the JDev