[Jingle] <iq/> versus <message/> (Was: Tomorrow's meeting)

Kevin Smith 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
>>> our
>>> 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
good idea.

/K


More information about the Jingle mailing list