[Foundation] Jabber vs XMPP Analysis

Ben Schumacher ben at blahr.com
Sun Jul 13 23:24:45 CDT 2003


Matt Tucker said:
> It's also worth noting that you never replied to my analysis of why your
> comparison to other internet protocols is flawed. Consider the following
> two examples:
>
> 1) SMTP to ESMTP or HTTP to HTTP 1.1 -- extensions to an existing
> protocol meant to enhance the existing functionality.
> 2) HTTP to WebDAV -- a new system for a totally different purpose that
> happens to be built on top of an existing protocol.
>
> The extensions to XMPP that the JSF develops are much more in line with
> protocol extensions, not a new system meant to accomplish something
> different. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to have a different name.

I completely disagree. There is absolutely a complete IM system couldn't
function without PubSub. PubSub is clearly something being built on top of
XMPP that goes above and beyond what XMPP does, or needs to do, to serve
its purpose as an IM protocol. It does, however, allow us (Jabber
developers) to provide interesting new functionality, especially with
respect to applications. Same with XML-RPC, or SOAP over XMPP. Again.
These are features that are intended to allows developers to build
applications on top of XMPP, when XMPP was originally designed to be a
messaging protocol. And what would prevent somebody from building a
distributed authoring and versioning system on top of the protocol, as
well? Your logic is flawed. By your logic, the XMPP name is viral in
nature, and all things XMPP-based should be encompassed by this name. Is
that really your argument?

If that's so, then why isn't your product called Jive XMPP Messenger?

bs.



More information about the Members mailing list