[Jingle] Opinions about Coin
enrico.marocco at telecomitalia.it
Thu Apr 28 13:34:27 UTC 2011
On 4/28/11 2:14 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> This is beginning to get too generic and I am afraid I am not
>> following. Could you please point the aspects in Coin that you
>> think would prevent XMPP servers to work with one another?
> I think Diana is saying that the model of COIN is essentially that of
> SIP, and doesn't conform well to the federation and deployment model
> of XMPP, which is much more structured and well-defined.
Yes, that's also what I thought was meant. The problem that I'm having
is that ever since we proposed Coin the kind of criticism the we've been
getting has mostly been a variant of "this is not the XMPP way" or "this
is sooo SIPish" or "this is a kitchensink" or even "read it and it'll
make you cry." I now wonder when we'll get "every time you read it a
It is hard to argue with such statements so it would be great to hear
something more specific. As a starter, an example of the issues that
come with being SIPish in this case -- assuming it is -- would help a
In this specific case I simply fail to see the paradigm mismatch. Coin
uses a very simple model that would be easy to adapt to the majority of
the conferencing applications today. In this model people either join or
are called into a conference which looks to them as a regular call.
Those who support coin would simply be able to learn more about it and
those who don't would still be able to participate.
In addition to matching the reality Coin is also very easily
integratable in other architectures, like Muji, since any participant
can act as a proxy between the two.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6066 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Jingle