[Jingle] <iq/> versus <message/> (Was: Tomorrow's meeting)
kevin at kismith.co.uk
Wed Jul 24 12:42:27 UTC 2013
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho at jitsi.org> wrote:
> On 24.07.13, 13:23, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> Let's try that again, with less fatfingering.
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho at jitsi.org> wrote:
>>> On 24.07.13, 12:22, Dave Cridland wrote:
>>>> Right, and adoption is something we've got to work on.
>>> Agreed and just deprecating all existing implementations with a wave of
>>> collective hand does not sound very much as nurturing adoption.
>> I don't think that adding the option of using messages instead of iqs
>> does this. I assume that we would add another disco for
>> jingle-message, and that if both end points have this they'd use
>> messages, otherwise iqs.
> Which means that we are keeping IQs as MTI. Is this what you are saying?
I would imagine so. Completely changing the transport mechanism with
no backwards compatibility would take some persuading me that it's a
More information about the Jingle