[MUC] distributed MUC

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Feb 17 10:20:58 CST 2010


On Wed Feb 17 15:38:19 2010, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre  
> <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> > Also while travelling yesterday I updated the old distributed MUC  
> proposal:
> > http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/distributedmuc.html
> 
> My promised comments:
> 
> There's another approach to this, discussed by Dave Cridland and
> myself offlist, which is interesting.

What's quite amusing is that Kev and I discussed this on the Eurostar  
toward Brussels, just as Peter was scribbling his protoXEP in an  
airport loungue on a journey to the same place.

Coincidence? I think so.

> Dave will probably now explain how we discussed something entirely
> different and better.

I think you've captured it, but the key thing is that Peter's idea is  
to have an IRC-like structure, where a room is conceptually shared  
between trusted servers by an agreement, whereas in our model,  
routing is delegated whereas control is not.

Now in principle, this means that both could co-exist - that is, the  
KD-style master could turn out to be a PSA-style mesh of trusted  
servers, and the KD-style slave need be none the wiser. (Just as the  
KD-style master can *also* be a KD-style slave).

Another distinction between the two approaches is what the core aims  
are - in PSA-style, it's to provide resilience between servers,  
whereas in KD-style, it's largely to reduce redundant message traffic  
from being repeated redundantly repeated.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade


More information about the MUC mailing list