[Foundation] Growing Concerns for Client Developers
adamtheo at theoretic.com
Mon Oct 8 20:28:48 CDT 2001
Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> At 09:52 PM 10/7/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >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... :)
ah, ok :) well, even better. that means people are not only listening,
but talking :)
> >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.
certainly. (echo not intended :-)
> >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.
yes, makes sense. all jabber environments should be approved by the
foundation, and approval can be revoked at any time if the Environment
has become too cluttered or wayward. i would say around the number 12
would be MAX. keep in mind that is the eventual number, covering
everything jabber could be designed to do (not only simple IM, complete
conversation, web services, and e-commerce transactions, but also
potentially ftp-like and push presentation systems like the now defunct
> 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. :)
hmm.... heard of J2ME, but not familiar with it at all. will quickly
look it up so i understand the basics, but could you please explain how
you think it can help?
/\ -- Adam Theo, Age 22, Tallahassee FL USA --
//\\ Theoretic Solutions (http://www.theoretic.com)
/____\ "Software, Internet Services and Advocacy"
/--||--\ Personal Website (http://www.theoretic.com/adamtheo)
|| Jabber Open IM (http://www.jabber.org)
|| Email & Jabber: adamtheo at theoretic.com
|| AIM: AdamTheo2000 ICQ: 3617306 Y!: AdamTheo2
"A free-market socialist computer geek patriotic American buddhist."
More information about the Members