[Foundation] Growing Concerns for Client Developers

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 8 10:12:51 CDT 2001

At 09:52 PM 10/7/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Iain Shigeoka <iainshigeoka at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I agree.  At the very least, if we have Jabber "environments" we must
> > provide for one that is limited enough to allow quick/small 
> implementations
> > of clients.  This should support simple implementations as plugins for
> > other applications (similar to the ease of adding rudimentary email
> > capability to a program) as well as resource constrained devices such as
> > mobile phones, 2way pagers, etc.
>Haha, by chance are you referring to my talk a little while ago about my
>idea of "Jabber Environments"? If so, thank you, I'm glad someone was

Actually I'm referring to your talk in a second hand way because I was told 
by someone else about it... :)

>If not, then we could very well be thinking along the same
>lines. Perhaps we should talk about this more, in public or private?

Certainly.  I would say we discuss it here so others can join in.

>Yes, I agree. This is where my above-mentioned "Jabber Environments"
>idea comes in. With this idea, Jabber itself would encompass alot of
>"standards", all approved and governed by the Foundation. The
>Foundation's job would be to keep these standards to a minimum while
>allowing for complete flexability (cut out the crappy standard proposals
>like it does now, no change). But instead of "packaging" and "labeling"
>these standards itself, it would leave that up to "Jabber Environments"
>which would pick and choose parts from the "greater cloud" of the Jabber
>protocol and package it all into easy to understand definitions and
>boundaries, possibly also with development tools and information.

I agree.  Although I think the number of levels or environments should be 
limited.  Too many and there will be too much confusion (developers and 
users) and chances for interop problems.  The only coherent system I've 
seen has been Java's J2ME configurations and profiles.  Configurations sort 
of describing hard computing resources, and profiles being application 
types.  I was tentatively thinking if we simply clone their configuration 
levels and profile types we can let them do all the explaining of what to 
use where.  :)


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Members mailing list